RochesterRob
-
Posts
5,718 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RochesterRob
-
-
10 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
You do realize Trump in fact owes a crap load of money to unknown people right?
Secrets like that are hardest to keep. Trump has been a public figure more scrutinized than Biden over the decades even the times Biden has thrown his hat into the POTUS ring. If Trump was getting money from an illicit figure there is a high probability of that leaking out to the public as Trump has quite a number of enemies and has had for a long time now. Biden has stayed in the shadows because he has been considered a light weight. That the Vice President is perhaps the most invisible man in DC.
-
3 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
because you can turn it into a Death Star? I’m curious why control of the moon is important?It (the moon) will be run by Martin Landau and his wife Barbara Bain plus a number of people with a British accent.
-
1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Because if you actually READ my comment, I am making a distinction here:
- Hunter allegations still subject to confirmation, but newsworthy (I think you agree with that)
- Diary story, even if confirmed, simply not newsworthy regardless
I know that's a bit complicated for some people ("wait ... he agrees with me on some things, yet somehow disagrees on others? Who is this weird poster? You must either be for Trump or against Trump!"), but for others, maybe not.
#RochesterSchools
Your distinctions are as clear as mud. I don't have anything against you personally but your post is structured poorly for the purpose of discussing Hunter, the diaries, and so forth. #RochesterSchools? I did not attend city schools and lived in a district outside of the RSD. I have a Regents Diploma and ranked pretty well in my graduating class. Diary story becomes very important IF confirmed as it leaves people to wonder what Biden can be blackmailed over. Sleep over with the kids friends seeing daddy's open bedroom door? Would you want a person working for you if you knew they could be blackmailed and in the process harm your business? I don't mention it as a joke because I know people that have been hurt by such things. As to your post most teachers would not bother trying to sift through that guessing what you are trying to say. There would be comments off to the side about "I know you are trying to say something but leave doubt as to what."
-
3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Because it was kind of funny, this foreign lady speaking out for her incompetent husband. Mail order bride
Your jealousy is obvious. Anyways, you got a few more hours of picking up cans so you can afford the hookers in the red light district.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Keep digging, Rob.
For what TFR would be trying to say in a diary thread? Hell yeah. I don't get down on people for not being professional writers but TFR needs to explain things better if he says the NYT piece does not pertain to the diary which seems to be the implication.
-
1 hour ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Russia if you’re listening.... I, WZ would like to emigrate to a country I better understand than this democracy crap we have in the US ...........FIFY.
-
32 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I don't see that they did. I quoted the NY Times on a Hunter topic, but I don't see any NPR coverage on this diary thing.
Why would you randomly post Hunter material when the topic is about the daughter's diaries. You : "OK, you made me look for it...................... One would only take it since you were in the diary thread that you would be looking for material concerning the diary. If you were intentionally wanting to talk about Hunter would you not start off by saying "I want to talk about Hunter" or "I want to pivot the conversation to Hunter?"
-
9 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
There is not any. Rob is wrong.
Re-read TFR's post as it is in big print. As I said it is possible that NPR did not retain the story for the purpose of archiving. Once again, ....offered by NPR's managing editor for news last week explaining why they were only covering it as a media story.... TFR post. Not mine.
WZ once again retreats into the cave of intellectual dishonesty. If not to address the diary then why the NYT quote at all?
-
2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:
He's probably on his private island spending time with the kids.
Gilligan!!!!!!!!!!
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
lol, you got banned??? Huh?
Nope, I'l; process you guys in the door.
Ewwhhh. I want no part of that processing.
-
Just now, The Frankish Reich said:
I don't see that they did. I quoted the NY Times on a Hunter topic, but I don't see any NPR coverage on this diary thing.
The NYT quote is suddenly in doubt? OK. As said before most media outlets don't have 100 percent retention on material presented. Can't imagine the resources required to archive 100 percent of material presented over many years.
-
2 hours ago, Tiberius said:
Yes! I'll be applying for a job there.
Anyway, here is Jennifer Rubin's list
But apart from concrete policy, we can also look forward to a host of things that we once took for granted:
- White House news releases without typos, weird punctuation and other glaring errors.
- Official documents that read like official documents in tone and that come out by email or hard copy, as opposed to tweets.
- The absence of childish name-calling, insults, racist remarks, gaffes characterized as “jokes” and singling out of individual companies simply because they failed to boost the president’s ego.
- A White House press shop that earns the presumption of trustworthiness until proven otherwise and — at worst — relies on “I don’t know” or vague evasion rather than outright lies.
- News conferences in which the president does not personally insult members of the media, exclude them for writing things he does not like or dub them “the enemy of the people.”
- Presidential interviews with respected news figures, not sycophantic media personalities.
- A normal presidential schedule in which hours of TV time are not built in.
- No more Stalinesque Cabinet meetings in which officials try to top one another in fawning over the president.
- A president who communicates directly with the leaders of the House and Senate.
- An administration that knows climate change is real and that more intense forest fires don’t result merely from insufficient sweeping of the forest floor.
- An engaged first lady who takes up important public causes with tangible results.
- An administration without relatives working in the White House.
- A president who does not make money from funneling attention and revenue to his holdings.
- No judicial nominee who is rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association.
- An administration in which “Infrastructure Week” is about infrastructure.
- A president who can comfort the nation in times of tragedy.
- A president who does not use the military as props.
- A president who has some basic grasp of American history, including racial injustice.
- A president whose advisers are not overwhelmingly White men.
- No presidential awards for political hacks, contributors and toxic media figures.
- A president who never utters the phrases “red state” or “blue city.”
- A White House counsel’s office that at least tries to get it right by providing advice in accord with the Constitution and statutes and polices unethical conduct.
- An administration that favors easy access to voting.
- Policy pronouncements issued only after consideration by relevant experts and departments.
- A president who does not celebrate police brutality or excuse war crimes.
- A president who does not embarrass us on the world stage.
- A president who knows that there are no NATO “dues” and consumers pay for tariffs.
- A president who understands the benefits of forward deployments and alliances.
- A president who does not encourage Chinese detention camps or defend the human rights record of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
No, you will be an inmate there. The rest of your post is just a liberal paranoid fantasy.
-
1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Where did NPR “touch” this story? Not sure they did...
Read The Frankish Reich's post towards the top. It is in large print. ....offered by NPR's managing editor........ as to why they were covering it........... A transcript would offer full context of course which is not always possible by a simple link. Many such as myself listen to media such as what is presented on radio which is not always readily available for review.
-
2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I just don't see anything there. I don't think it's fair to share someone's private diary (even if real) so I'll try to avoid quoting from it.
Suffice to say that this is the kind of stuff we see when people are in therapy. They're asked to look deep into their childhoods to try to remember (or perhaps reconstruct, or construct in the first instance) things that might explain why they turned to drugs or alcohol in adulthood, or became addicted to sex, or have trouble maintaining long-term relationships. We saw the same thing happen with Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. She never mentioned anything about him or the events in question until she was in marriage therapy and was asked about things that may have given her unhealthy attitudes toward sexuality, etc. That was based on fragile (reconstructed?) teenage memories. These diary entries about about young childhood events -- they never say how young. And the only event is kind of innocuous, and clearly isn't even her focus in the diary (she mostly talks about a cousin or friends in relation to possible traumatic childhood events.) I can assure you that my kid just told me she has no memory of ever having gone on a specific vacation when she was about 6 years old. Not 3 years old; 8 years old. I said why did we bother even taking you on that vacation. That's how childhood can be.
So ... not newsworthy, not "news," more gossip of the type the National Enquirer used to have a monopoly on, an then Gawker, and then ... well, all kinds of sleazy minor websites, many of which have a not-so-hidden political agenda these days.
Agreed that the diary should not be used without permission of the holder which has been unclear in this case. But it should be troubling that NPR touched it given the MO of the MSM of which NPR is a part of. So many things pertaining to the Biden's have been 100 percent off limits in terms of coverage to this point. Why even go near it if you are NPR? If there was a policy that was followed whereby an organization looks at everything and dismisses what they consider non-credible then it would be different.
-
Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Thank you for not being a wimp like Rob.
I can see why he didn't post it, though. A bit out there.
Don't muddy the water. I could have posted any number of connections and you would have doubted them. I did not post a thread because I was waiting for more to be revealed. I was unaware until now that NPR addressed it even if not to validate it. Strange since the MO has been to black out any damaging Biden stories by the MSM. Why would they even acknowledge it (the diary)? Are they trying to get out ahead of something?
-
5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
OK, you made me look for it. And anyone can find it if motivated to do so.
Is it real? Who knows. My guess: probably, mostly because the "smoking gun" is really something pretty lame.
Is it newsworthy? No. For the same reason.
I won't link to it because the whole idea of publishing someone's diary that (if real) is probably something a former co-patient (or worse yet, counselor) at a rehab facility leaked, likely for money, to a sleazy website is just beyond the pale. I will say that after poking around the site a bit I find nothing other than a sad account of a troubled woman, which also includes references to her parents being supportive; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were the ones who paid for the rehab visits.
I get that news isn't always gathered in the most respectable ways. The test of whether it's "news" at all (as opposed to celeb gossip) is whether it adds anything to public debate. This doesn't. It is more like doing a story on Barron Trump, asking his friends and teachers whether he was damaged by his father's flings with porn stars and the airing of the Access Hollywood tape. That would cross a similar line into what has no business being in the public realm. We really shouldn't go there.
It's hard to be considered objective in this polarized environment. But to try to show that I'm not just parroting a Democratic line, I will say that this is different than some of the alleged Hunter material, since regardless of the manner in which it was obtained (assuming it is legit), that information does have some connection to real issues of public concern. The line isn't always clear, but there is a line. At least, I hope there's still a line. With respect to the Hunter thing, I think Ross Douthat (a mainstream conservative at a liberal paper) gets it exactly right: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html
On the one hand, the new information is not the Biden-slaying blockbuster suggested by the New York Post headlines and some Trump supporters. But neither does it fit the description offered by NPR’s managing editor for news last week, explaining why they were only covering it as a media story: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”
In fact, it’s not a distraction to have new insight into a potential First Son’s business dealings — especially given that the saga of the younger Biden is a prime example in how a milder-than-Trump form of corruption pervaded the American elite long before Trump came along, with important people and their families constantly finding ways to get rich in the shadow of the Pax Americana without ever taking anything so crass as a bribe.
Too early to know the scope which is why I did not start a thread on it. Weird that NPR would give any light to this story given that they are in the tank for Democrats. Seems to me that NPR would be part of an effort to smother it. At the end of the day it mostly likely will not slay Biden but could be very damaging as this makes Biden prone to blackmail if it is true but yet resides in the shade.
-
1 minute ago, Gary M said:
No no no, she stayed so Hillary could replace her.
That's the sweetest of poetic justice.
And now you have snowflake C00ns crying about all the other judges Trump has seated being "and too far right".
Pretty sure Obummer left those seats open for HRC to fill.
RBG obviously ignored her education in favor of cooked polls showing the Hilldog with a big lead. Another example of a person letting their ego run amok instead of using their brain. I could see the pant suit queen issuing an edict like that.
-
1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
I bypassed the rest of that post because it was and still is nonsense.
Just like I bypassed the rest of this post.
You bypassed both because you know that you are losing the fight worse than you were on page 1. Give it up already. You know that there is material that can be easily googled. I would understand the need to link if there was not.
-
7 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Page 2 of you looking like a moron.
Up to you to post the link to the "pending news"
Convenient that you bypassed the rest of my post. Not that it was ever in doubt but you updated to the minute that you and your ilk (Q Baby using the word tard or Tibs casting an FU) use derogatory language and mostly while being on the offensive. Not that you ever had the moral upper hand but now you have definitely lost it. Again, this is all tiresome. There is material out there to view and judge the validity of. Asking me to prove is like asking me to prove that there is a sun in the sky. Either way you have to get off of your butt and go look.
-
1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Page 2 of you looking like a moron.
Up to you to post the link to the "pending news"
How can I post news that has not yet been presented? If you want to read about the diary you can google and find hits then evaluate in terms of personal credibility. I'm not doing your homework for you when you were dumb enough to start a thread without checking things out for yourself. You obviously believed there was validity or you would not have started a thread.
-
Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Solid edit. So you're admitting to the potential spread of disinformation?
Like you and your buddies when they spread talk of Trump having sex with minors? No. Why don't you use google and see the stories for yourself. Surely, you would rather read the source material than get it from a source you consider suspect or unreliable. You are quite tiresome. You need to improve your game to keep my attention.
-
Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
I, WZ am not coherent.
What is the logic of you asking another poster for an opinion on Biden's daughter's diary?
You're right. I should not expect logic from you.
-
5 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
We've already gone through this.
What is the supposedly pending news?
I'm not an insider so I can't tell you time or material.
15 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:If SDS wants to waste his time talking with me instead of the poster who tells others their "soul is already hanging by a thread as it dangles above the bottom depths of hell," so be it.
So this diary... why does it matter?
Puppet thumbs up another puppet.
-
1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:
You're pretty stupid but I will spell it out for you. Not only is there an ethical issue but it opens the door for other potential similar issues for potential blackmail leading to potential misconduct by Biden. Of course you and your ilk being the slime of the Earth gravitate towards fellow slime so I should not be surprised.
Right there, WZ.
My words be mine
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Why do I have a feeling that your take would be different if the liberals here were winning that battle. You say it is against the TOS and yet from time to time it is rampant over on TSW. Do those posters get called out on that? If ST could offer more than rants about "Covid Donnie" maybe he would receive less grief.