1
Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Trump vs. First AmendmentFollow

#27 Jun 16 2020 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Demea wrote:
Because of the looting?
See, this just smells wrong.


So...if peaceful protesting drags looting in it's wake, the protest is invalid?

If I'm gonna walk down the street with a sign and you choose to follow behind me masturbating, my statement doesn't hold water? I thought you were above this king of gbaji bullcarp, dude.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#28 Jun 17 2020 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Demea wrote:
Because of the looting?
See, this just smells wrong.


So...if peaceful protesting drags looting in it's wake, the protest is invalid?

If I'm gonna walk down the street with a sign and you choose to follow behind me masturbating, my statement doesn't hold water? I thought you were above this king of gbaji bullcarp, dude.

That's not what I said or meant at all, and it would take a willful misinterpretation of that exchange to come to that conclusion.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#29 Jun 17 2020 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
If that's what it takes...
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#30 Jun 17 2020 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
Demea wrote:
Because of the looting?

Honestly, I truthfully do believe that the conversation happening currently about defunding/demilitarizing police departments is a direct result of the rioting and property destruction happening parallel to the peaceful BLM protests.

We're a capitalist country. People don't care unless it affects their wallet. We see that proven time and time again. As far as I'm concerned, we wouldn't be nearly as far as we are if it hadn't been for the rioting.
#31 Jun 30 2020 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Velicenda wrote:
I mean, our country's history is filled with quite a lot of holes if you ignore all the times that violence, violent protest, and rioting have accomplished things.


I'm by far not one of those people who claim that "violence never solved anything", because most things in history were only ever "solved" via violence. The issue is the nature of that violence and how well directed it is at generating a desired outcome. Military action often is very carefully aimed and with specific goals (usually). Protests can do this as well. However, one of the key issues that is often missing in modern activism is the "what are we fighting *for*" aspect. It's easy to protest "against" something. It's easy to fight "against" things. It's easy to say what you don't like, and you can often get a whole lot of people to agree with you. The trick always comes when you decide what you are "for". And no, saying "I'm for ending <whatever>" does not count.

I see a lot of people chanting "defund the police". Ok. And replace them with what? I see a lot of people saying "tear down this statue, that monument, etc". Ok. Where's the end point? What are you "for" in terms of statues and monuments? Is there anything you (or others in the crowd) wont find offensive for some reason and want to tear down as well? If you can't answer that question, and more importantly if the group can't collectively answer that question, then you need to stop and assess what you're actually doing.

History is full of violence being used to end bad rule and bring about positive change. However, when those fighting to tear down the existing rule(s) but with no actual idea of what they're going to replace it with, the eventual replacement is almost universally much much worse than what the angry mob started out fighting against. Just ask the Russians. The Chinese. The Cambodians. The Venezuelans. Obviously, those are extreme examples, but the same concept applies at any level. The irony here is that the people we're all supposedly most outraged on behalf of (black lives, right?) are the same people who have the highest rate of negative police interactions, right? Guess what? They also have the same higher ratio of positive interactions as well. When you live in a high poverty high crime neighborhood, there's going to be increased presence. That means more stops. That means more chances for something to go wrong. Um... But if you live in those same neighborhoods, you're also more likely to be a victim of crime and need the police as well. So "defund the police" is a great way to make the folks we're supposed to be trying to help just be victimized more. And stats over the last few weeks as police departments have been told to stand down in those neighborhoods out of fear of angering the population certainly bear this out. Again. You can't just fight against something. You should always fight "for" something.

And obviously rioting and looting is well out of the "productive violence" category. That's just destroying stuff and stealing stuff for the sake of doing so. There's no positive outcome at the end of that rainbow.

Quote:
Besides, when he gassed/shot rubber bullets at the PEACEFUL protesters outside the White House for his photo op, that kinda immediately refuted any argument about him using violence against ONLY violent protesters.


First off, let's not play the pronoun game. "He" didn't gas or shoot rubber bullets at anyone. "He" does not match "his" or "him" used later in the same sentence. The park police cleared that park. And it's unclear if they did it specifically for a photo op for the president or if they had planned to do so anyway to move the protests farther from the White House (so as to reduce the lock down issues they were having, which is kinda disruptive to getting anything done). It's entirely possible that the decision to clear the park was made already and Trump decided to take advantage of it to do the photo op thing. We don't know. You certainly don't know, so please don't assume a cause/effect relationship.

At the end of the day, if the police ask you to move and you refuse to do so, you are basically forcing them to use some form of force to remove you. Complaining about it after the fact is kinda silly IMO. What do you expect the police to do after asking nicely has failed? I'll also point out that "lawful protest" is really the better standard to use than merely "peaceful". You can be peacefully standing with a crowd on a highway blocking traffic, and the police are going to remove you, right? Your right to assemble does not magically allow you to ignore laws that otherwise exist. The park police had every reasonable cause to clear that park, given the violence the previous few nights. They certainly have the legal authority to clear that park. So yeah, if they show up and tell everyone that they have to leave, then anyone who hasn't when the time comes can't claim to be blameless for the outcome. No one was killed by the actions of those officers that night. That can't be said for a number of the "peaceful" protests that have been going on over the last several weeks now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Jun 30 2020 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Velicenda wrote:
Demea wrote:
Because of the looting?

Honestly, I truthfully do believe that the conversation happening currently about defunding/demilitarizing police departments is a direct result of the rioting and property destruction happening parallel to the peaceful BLM protests.

We're a capitalist country. People don't care unless it affects their wallet. We see that proven time and time again. As far as I'm concerned, we wouldn't be nearly as far as we are if it hadn't been for the rioting.


I would place the odds of the folks who have had property damaged, destroyed, or stolen as a result of the rioting and looting being the same people calling for defunding the police somewhere very close to 0%
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Jul 07 2020 at 9:26 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's entirely possible that the decision to clear the park was made already and Trump decided to take advantage of it to do the photo op thing


...which still makes him a gigantic douche.



YOUR DOUCHE.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#34 Jul 08 2020 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Speaking of the first amendment, I've been seeing a lot- and I mean A LOT of talk from Trump supporters lately about how their freedom of speech is being violated. It's "violated" whenever their video is deleted from Youtube. It's "violated" when Facebook or Instagram bans them for breaking their ToS. If they're ranting about how the Corona virus is fake and how wearing masks is the new **** holocaust, and you tell them to shut the **** up, you're violating their precious freedom. If you so much as disagree with what they're saying, they'll cry and tell you it's their freedom of speech and you can't criticize them for being a moron.

Now I hear about how they're actually trying to legislate "freedom of speech" on the internet. They want everyone to have the "freedom" to post whatever they want on social media for instance, but social media no longer has the freedom to decide what is and isn't allowed on their platform.

Ultimately what they're doing is removing the protection against third parties. What will end up happening is sites like YouTube and Twitter will cease to exist because they are no longer allowed to host user generated content whatsoever.

It's bewildering... They want everyone to be able to post what they want without being "censored" by the site administrators, yet what they're trying to do is undo part of a law that protects brands like Twitter from third parties posting whatever they want, like photos of themselves sodomizing a dead baby. They would have Twitter be liable for someone else's posts on their site.

I mean, I thought conservatives were all about unfettered free market capitalism? You want to regulate private business now because they're deleting your meme about dragging a black person behind a truck? You think YouTube should be forced to keep your video about how you think viruses are just cell waste and everyone is getting sick because of 5G? How does that work? If I went on your private website and posted pictures of my last bowel movement all over the comment section, would you keep them in the name of "free speech?" How ******* stupid can you get?

It never ends. This is every single day. People have stopped crying about "fake news" and moved on to crying about how oppressed they are by the government when a private business stops them from voicing their idiotic opinions using their platform. So now they want to take their ball (which is not actually their ball) and go home.

Meanwhile it's perfectly ok to gun down someone's child for (possibly) stealing a bag of skittles. It's ok to drive by and shotgun a dude in the face, why, "he shouldn't have been running" they'll actually tell you. We'd have fewer cases of Covid 19 if nobody went and got tested...! I mean, you're technically not wrong! I am only touching the surface of iceburg of stupid that represents America's collective thought process.

I'm reading all of this back to myself and I feel stupid for even writing it. It feels unreal. It feels like I'm beating on strawmen because quite a few times someone on here recently has said as much. I mean, do you think they're strawmen, really? Have you been to the comments sections or forums outside of the Aslyum recently? A lot of commenters are quick to dismiss them, calling them "paid Russian trolls." I'm not really sure about the validity of that- that they're all just bots or a sweatshop filled with poor folks in Russia getting paid to say dumb things where Americans can see it. -not when every day I read news about actual, real life stupid Americans throwing tantrums about wearing a mask or running over protesters with their cars. Could it just be that all of this madness is real, after all?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#35 Jul 08 2020 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
I mean, I thought conservatives were all about unfettered free market capitalism?


I mean, they completely and totally are**.









** Until any exercise by the free market so much as remotely inconveniences them.
#36 Jul 21 2020 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Speaking of the first amendment, I've been seeing a lot- and I mean A LOT of talk from Trump supporters lately about how their freedom of speech is being violated. It's "violated" whenever their video is deleted from Youtube. It's "violated" when Facebook or Instagram bans them for breaking their ToS. If they're ranting about how the Corona virus is fake and how wearing masks is the new **** holocaust, and you tell them to shut the **** up, you're violating their precious freedom. If you so much as disagree with what they're saying, they'll cry and tell you it's their freedom of speech and you can't criticize them for being a moron.


It's not you criticizing them. It's the site hosting their content deleting or removing it that they are upset at. If the rules that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and other followed was consistent there would be no issues. But it seems suspiciously targeted at conservative speech, and that's what's got folks upset.

Quote:
Now I hear about how they're actually trying to legislate "freedom of speech" on the internet. They want everyone to have the "freedom" to post whatever they want on social media for instance, but social media no longer has the freedom to decide what is and isn't allowed on their platform.

Ultimately what they're doing is removing the protection against third parties. What will end up happening is sites like YouTube and Twitter will cease to exist because they are no longer allowed to host user generated content whatsoever.

It's bewildering... They want everyone to be able to post what they want without being "censored" by the site administrators, yet what they're trying to do is undo part of a law that protects brands like Twitter from third parties posting whatever they want, like photos of themselves sodomizing a dead baby. They would have Twitter be liable for someone else's posts on their site.


That is a gross misrepresentation of what is going on. For those of us actually active online back in the late 80s and early 90s, and who knew people who worked in the content hosting world back then, the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and specifically section 230 (which is what your earlier link references to) was critically important to the growth of content hosting and eventually to modern social media that exists today. Before that point, content hosts were legally responsible for the content on their servers. Period. So if I build a bunch of web servers, and sell space on them to third parties (so each customer gets X amount of space and Y amount of bandwidth), I would be responsible to police the content on that web server. Same with hosting email content, online forums, etc. This is obviously extremely onerous and can get to be a ridiculous time and money sink (one of my cousins worked at a content hosting site in the early 90s and one of the accounts he managed was Tom Metzger. So fun!).

The Act basically removed that responsibility. It declared that if you merely hosted content services, but did not provide (ie: publish) the content yourself, you were not responsible. Only the actual publisher was. So the person who put the illegal content on the page, or on the post, or on a forum, was legally or civilly responsible. The point is that it declared such services to *not* be publishers. However, once you start editing that content you become a publisher again. You then take on responsibility for *all* the content you are hosting at that point.

That's the argument that conservatives are making. If Facebook and others want to enjoy the protection of that Act, they they need to be hands off in terms of third party content on their service. They can't edit, delete, ban, etc based solely on the content itself. They can obviously do this if there is some other abuse, but right now they're using that loophole to apply whatever rules they want. And those rules tend to magically censor conservative speech a whole heck of a lot of the time. If they want to censor that content, then they should lose their protect under that Act.

In other words, they have to pick one. Not just kinda arbitrarily do both.

Quote:
I mean, I thought conservatives were all about unfettered free market capitalism? You want to regulate private business now because they're deleting your meme about dragging a black person behind a truck? You think YouTube should be forced to keep your video about how you think viruses are just cell waste and everyone is getting sick because of 5G? How does that work? If I went on your private website and posted pictures of my last bowel movement all over the comment section, would you keep them in the name of "free speech?" How ******* stupid can you get?


No. We don't think that Youtube should be censoring anything at all. But right now, the conservative video expressing an opinion (whatever it is) gets deleted, while an equally fringe liberal video expressing an equally bizarre opinion, does not. It should not be about whether the (mostly liberal) folks running these services agree with the content. A video expressing the opinion that a fetus is just a collection of cells and should be treated no differently than a virus or a toenail (ie: can be removed with no ethical thought) is just as much unscientific and controversial as a video expressing the opinion that 5G will make you get cancer, right? Yet, which one do you think might be censored?

That should not be the case.

[quote[It never ends. This is every single day. People have stopped crying about "fake news" and moved on to crying about how oppressed they are by the government when a private business stops them from voicing their idiotic opinions using their platform. So now they want to take their ball (which is not actually their ball) and go home.[/quote]

Uh. Again, that's not remotely what people are saying. That's the gross misinterpretation you are receiving from your own biased sources. Maybe actually talk to conservatives and see what they have to say rather than talking to liberals talking about what they think conservatives are saying? It might be more informative. No one's saying that the government is oppressing them in this, but that these services are abusing a protection that the government gave them 25 years ago, and it's now becoming unbalanced (has been for some time actually).

Again. It's not anyone's job to censor "idiotic opinions". But it does become dangerous to a society that believes in free speech when pretty much every one of the major internet media providers is censoring. Because what defines "idiotic opinion" is subjective, and can easily be translated to "opinions I disagree with". Given the sheer volume of communication that is now done via these services, that's a big deal.

Quote:
Meanwhile it's perfectly ok to gun down someone's child for (possibly) stealing a bag of skittles. It's ok to drive by and shotgun a dude in the face, why, "he shouldn't have been running" they'll actually tell you. We'd have fewer cases of Covid 19 if nobody went and got tested...! I mean, you're technically not wrong! I am only touching the surface of iceburg of stupid that represents America's collective thought process.


Look. If you want to talk about other people's stupidity, maybe you can start by *not* massively misrepresenting those things in the first place. Every one of those is completely wrong in terms of describing the events or actions in question. I might not even disagree with you on some of these things, but when you seem to go out of your way to exaggerate, misrepresent, or completely reverse the cause/effect argument someone else made, it just makes *you* look like either an idiot, or a tool that just parrots the idiocy of others.

One example from your list. No one (well, no one worth listening to) is arguing that we'd have fewer covid cases if we tested fewer people. The number of people you test has nothing at all to do with the actual number of people infected. However, what we do say (I've said this many times) is that slavishly listing the number of "confirmed cases" and trying to do stats on that is silly. Doubly so when the folks doing so most of the time are journalists and they don't understand anything at all about statistics. The number of "confirmed cases" also has nothing to do with the number of actual infected people. It has to do with how many people you test. Obviously, if you double the number of tests, and the "real rate of infection" in your population stays the same, you will double the number of "confirmed cases". And you might erroneously conclude that "OMG! The number of cases of covid is spiking! We must run around like scared chickens now!". But in actuality the "real rate of infection" hasn't changed at all. There is no spike. There's nothing to be alarmed about (well, more so than the previous numbers anyway).

The only numbers anyone should *ever* be looking at is hospitalizations for covid per capita and deaths from covid per capita. Track those numbers over time (not "totals", but "new this week" or whatever time period you're looking at). This gives you something you can graph that is actually useful. But you'll be hard pressed to find that stat on any graphic on your evening news, or your 24 hour cable news, or on your online news. You have to dig a few levels down on the cdc pages to find this information. And most people wont bother.

My point is that the way you wrote it makes it seem like people are arguing that we shouldn't test people, because testing just makes more people sick or something ridiculous. No. We're saying that the way people are reporting the data is incorrect and provides false information to the public. And, yet again, it's remarkable how often the mostly left leaning media tends to selectively choose when and which data to do the misinformation about. So GOP run states get this false "OMG covid rates are spiking" treatment, while there are crickets chirping about Dem run states. This despite the *actual* fact that death rates in Dem controlled states (ie: deaths from covid per capita) are like 2.5 times higher than the rates in GOP run states.

Pretty sure your source never informed you about that right? They just told you all the stupid things that conservatives are saying. Maybe be more diverse in your sources. Just a thought.

Quote:
I'm reading all of this back to myself and I feel stupid for even writing it. It feels unreal. It feels like I'm beating on strawmen because quite a few times someone on here recently has said as much. I mean, do you think they're strawmen, really? Have you been to the comments sections or forums outside of the Aslyum recently? A lot of commenters are quick to dismiss them, calling them "paid Russian trolls." I'm not really sure about the validity of that- that they're all just bots or a sweatshop filled with poor folks in Russia getting paid to say dumb things where Americans can see it. -not when every day I read news about actual, real life stupid Americans throwing tantrums about wearing a mask or running over protesters with their cars. Could it just be that all of this madness is real, after all?


Not sure what you're saying here. Are commenters dismissing the posts/articles as russian trolls? Or other commenters? Actually, scratch that. I don't really care.

Edited, Jul 21st 2020 2:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Jul 22 2020 at 1:54 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
^^^ Literal cancer killing the forums
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#38 Jul 22 2020 at 5:11 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
ZAM needs to step up and censor these hateful conservative screeds.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#39 Jul 22 2020 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
stupidmonkey wrote:
^^^ Literal cancer killing the forums
If by that you mean I end up responding to him - thus feeding the tumor - then, yeah.Smiley: laugh




OK, not really. Smiley: wink
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#40 Jul 24 2020 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
ZAM needs to step up and censor these hateful conservative screeds.
I agree.
It's really great news that the left-wing news bias has spread to the social media platforms. Zam should do it's part.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#41 Aug 04 2020 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
ZAM needs to step up and censor these hateful conservative screeds.
I agree.
It's really great news that the left-wing news bias has spread to the social media platforms. Zam should do it's part.


Sorta related:

Someone at my work (and other randos I've talked to) keep saying that "Fox and CNN are the same thing on flip sides of the political coin" (paraphrasing). Meaning that they lie equally.

If true, why (I ask them) does Drumph not call Fox "Fake news"? Funny how they have no answer to that.














FRONT PAGE GET YET AGAIN!!! I R TEH FIELD MARSHAL OF ZAM!!!!ONE111ELEVENTEEN!!!!!!!
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#42 Aug 05 2020 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
[Someone at my work (and other randos I've talked to) keep saying that "Fox and CNN are the same thing on flip sides of the political coin" (paraphrasing). Meaning that they lie equally.

If true, why (I ask them) does Drumph not call Fox "Fake news"? Funny how they have no answer to that.


Well, because odds are anyone who says that probably doesn't actively watch either network. They probably get all their news from some random conspiracy nuts' youtube videos or something (yeah, I know a guy like that).

Second answer is that Trump bashes Fox News all the time. Did you not see the interview he did with Chris Wallace, where he got called out for it? Trump basically attacks anyone who says something negative about him. He doesn't really care who it is, or how that person or group is aligned politically. He's as likely to go after Republicans who do something he doesn't like as Democrats. Just that the Dems do it more frequently is all.


Edited, Aug 5th 2020 2:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Aug 05 2020 at 6:11 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
[Someone at my work (and other randos I've talked to) keep saying that "Fox and CNN are the same thing on flip sides of the political coin" (paraphrasing). Meaning that they lie equally.

If true, why (I ask them) does Drumph not call Fox "Fake news"? Funny how they have no answer to that.


Well, because odds are anyone who says that probably doesn't actively watch either network. They probably get all their news from some random conspiracy nuts' youtube videos or something (yeah, I know a guy like that).

Second answer is that Trump bashes Fox News all the time. Did you not see the interview he did with Chris Wallace, where he got called out for it? Trump basically attacks anyone who says something negative about him. He doesn't really care who it is, or how that person or group is aligned politically. He's as likely to go after Republicans who do something he doesn't like as Democrats. Just that the Dems do it more frequently is all.


I wrote:
why (I ask them) does Drumph not call Fox "Fake news"
Since that's the the specific question...
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#44 Aug 06 2020 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
They probably get all their news from some random conspiracy nuts' youtube videos or something (yeah, I know a guy like that).


CODE RED, THIS IS NOT A DRILL, REPEAT, CODE RED...gbaji HAS ACHIEVED SELF AWARENESS...CODE RED, THIS IS NOT A DRILL, REPEAT, CODE RED...
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#45 Aug 06 2020 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama will be DOOMED when people learn about this Odinga stuff!!!!!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Aug 07 2020 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Second answer is that Trump bashes Fox News all the time. Did you not see the interview he did with Chris Wallace, where he got called out for it? Trump basically attacks anyone who says something negative about him. He doesn't really care who it is, or how that person or group is aligned politically. He's as likely to go after Republicans who do something he doesn't like as Democrats. Just that the Dems do it more frequently is all.


Quote:
why (I ask them) does Drumph not call Fox "Fake news"
Since that's the the specific question...


And saying that he bashes Fox all the time is still a legitimate answer to that question. As in: "he may not use that specific terminology, but he still goes after them in other ways and with other language when they put something out there he disagrees with". Answering a question does not require repudiating the question itself.

I'm also not sure why you think your magic question in some way invalidates the " They're the same thing on flip sides of the political coin" claim anyway, since bashing one while giving the other a pass would still work with the "they both lie, but are on opposite sides" starting point. But since I don't actually agree with the whole coin analogy in the first place, I don't really care that much.


Edited, Aug 7th 2020 2:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Aug 08 2020 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Thank you for conceding that Trump calls pretty much every news outlet "fake news" except Fox.









Having said that; I don't watch the current incarnation of Pravda, but I'm guessing he doesn't call them "fake news" either.

Edited, Aug 8th 2020 11:42am by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 241 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (241)