Koko78 Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, /dev/null said: I'm sorry, the correct answer is:
/dev/null Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I'm sorry, the correct answer is: Now that's just plain wrong. Aliens don't provide information. They just control human existence 2
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 So, what I am hearing is that the Op-Ed simultaneously: A) completely made up by some rando at the "failing" NYT as part of the "lamestream media's" war on Trump, in spite of the fact that it meshes with numerous accounts of people who left. And B) Absolutely validates a Deep State conspiracy, probably done at Obama and/or Clinton's behest.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: So, what I am hearing is that the Op-Ed simultaneously: A) completely made up by some rando at the "failing" NYT as part of the "lamestream media's" war on Trump, in spite of the fact that it meshes with numerous accounts of people who left. And B) Absolutely validates a Deep State conspiracy, probably done at Obama and/or Clinton's behest. Correct. If it's true, it's direct evidence of a functioning deep state working to under cut the duly elected sitting President. If it's fiction, it's direct evidence that the NY Times is a functioning part of a deep state narrative designed to undercut the duly elected sitting President. Either way, it 100% validates the existence of the deep state. Edited September 12, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker 2
Tommy Callahan Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Lol. The failing nyt just did that as a poison pill piece.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Correct. If it's true, it's direct evidence of a functioning deep state. If it's faction, it's direct evidence that the NY Times is a functioning part of a deep state narrative designed to undercut the duly elected sitting President. That's my point. People are having it both ways. If it wasn't a legitimate threat to our Constitutional checks and balances, and raises the possibility that the POTUS is a borderline senile and easily manipulated man-child I would find it hilarious that the Deep State wasn't his political opponents or a secret cabal of intelligence officials but his reality show casting by hiring of petty, backstabbing sycophants out purely for their own gain. But it is, and I'm not laughing.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: That's my point. People are having it both ways. If it wasn't a legitimate threat to our Constitutional checks and balances, and raises the possibility that the POTUS is a borderline senile and easily manipulated man-child I would find it hilarious that the Deep State wasn't his political opponents or a secret cabal of intelligence officials but his reality show casting by hiring of petty, backstabbing sycophants out purely for their own gain. But it is, and I'm not laughing. People are not "having it both ways". It's simply the reality of the situation. By advancing the piece the Times has demonstrated that there is a deep state, and that they are one of it's tendrils. 2
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: People are not "having it both ways". It's simply the reality of the situation. By advancing the piece the Times has demonstrated that there is a deep state, and that they are one of it's tendrils. Huh? If it's quality reporting, then how are they anything other than a responsible press?
Chef Jim Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 40 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Huh? If it's quality reporting, then how are they anything other than a responsible press? I'm sorry but an Op-Ed piece from an anonymous source is not quality reporting. It's not even reporting at all. It's essentially "sharing" a Facebook post. 2
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 59 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Huh? If it's quality reporting, then how are they anything other than a responsible press? It's not "quality reporting". They didn't report anything. They either: 1) Fabricated a story from the ground up, demonstrating that they are a propaganda arm of a deep state seeking to undermine a duly elected President. or 2) The OpEd is real, demonstrating that they are a propaganda arm of a deep state seeking to undermine a duly elected President. They are complicit either way. That's all their OpEd served to reveal. 1
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Huh? If it's quality reporting, then how are they anything other than a responsible press? 26 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: I'm sorry but an Op-Ed piece from an anonymous source is not quality reporting. It's not even reporting at all. It's essentially "sharing" a Facebook post. Who'd have thought that Democrats this day and age couldn't distinguish opinions and editorials from reporting? Oh, wait...I know who... 1 3
Nanker Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Chris farley said: Lol. The failing nyt just did that as a poison pill piece. How much longer before the poison takes effect? Asking for a friend.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 20 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: I'm sorry but an Op-Ed piece from an anonymous source is not quality reporting. It's not even reporting at all. It's essentially "sharing" a Facebook post. Well, they claimed to have checked that the authority was a member of the administration with some clout. If this person has a story in which they claim to be operating a shadow government, that's absolutely a story. It is their reputation and credibility on the line. So, assuming that they actually did verify the identity of the author, the Times is actively working as a free and independent press, which is what they are supposed to do. The question is the identity of the source and the veracity of what they say. I tend to believe it, as it tracks with what we've seen as outside observers: the biggest policy changes being deregulation and tax code, the orgasm inducers of the conservative wing. Everything else has pretty much ground itself out. The petty backstabbing and paranoia jives with what we heard in Fire and Fury and the Fear books. So either all these separate competing journalists all fabricated sources and documents to spin coorborating lies...or the dude who claimed to clean up 9/11 rubble personally while also watch Muslim in NJ celebrating is full of a metric ton of crap. 2 minutes ago, Nanker said: How much longer before the poison takes effect? Asking for a friend. Considering that their readership has been increasing...i am guessing no time soon. 12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: It's not "quality reporting". They didn't report anything. They either: 1) Fabricated a story from the ground up, demonstrating that they are a propaganda arm of a deep state seeking to undermine a duly elected President. or 2) The OpEd is real, demonstrating that they are a propaganda arm of a deep state seeking to undermine a duly elected President. They are complicit either way. That's all their OpEd served to reveal. With two...i don't think you understand how journalism works. Or what complicity is. They would be complicit if they KILLED the story alerting people to this news. Publishing it has alerted people to a need to remedy the problem. Even progressives think it's dangerous to let those cowards be kleptocrats 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 12, 2018 Posted September 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, they claimed to have checked that the authority was a member of the administration with some clout. If this person has a story in which they claim to be operating a shadow government, that's absolutely a story. It is their reputation and credibility on the line. So, assuming that they actually did verify the identity of the author, the Times is actively working as a free and independent press, which is what they are supposed to do. The question is the identity of the source and the veracity of what they say. I tend to believe it, as it tracks with what we've seen as outside observers: the biggest policy changes being deregulation and tax code, the orgasm inducers of the conservative wing. Everything else has pretty much ground itself out. The petty backstabbing and paranoia jives with what we heard in Fire and Fury and the Fear books. So either all these separate competing journalists all fabricated sources and documents to spin coorborating lies...or the dude who claimed to clean up 9/11 rubble personally while also watch Muslim in NJ celebrating is full of a metric ton of crap. Considering that their readership has been increasing...i am guessing no time soon. With two...i don't think you understand how journalism works. Or what complicity is. They would be complicit if they KILLED the story alerting people to this news. Publishing it has alerted people to a need to remedy the problem. Even progressives think it's dangerous to let those cowards be kleptocrats Incorrect. If it's true what they have done is protect the anonymity of an unelected person serving in government actively working to subvert a duly elected President (the democratic will of the people), and provide them with a platform to propagandize. IE. working as a propaganda arm of the deep state. 1
4merper4mer Posted September 13, 2018 Posted September 13, 2018 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Incorrect. If it's true what they have done is protect the anonymity of an unelected person serving in government actively working to subvert a duly elected President (the democratic will of the people), and provide them with a platform to propagandize. IE. working as a propaganda arm of the deep state. But Trump is a big mean meanie.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 13, 2018 Posted September 13, 2018 2 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: With two...i don't think you understand how journalism works. The irony of this statement is high comedy. A guy who is conflating op eds with journalism saying someone else doesn't understand how journalism works. Never stop being you, WhiteWalker.
Koko78 Posted September 13, 2018 Posted September 13, 2018 44 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: But Trump is a big mean meanie. It's almost as if Trump is actually literally super mecha-Hitler!
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2018 Posted September 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Koko78 said: It's almost as if Trump is actually literally super mecha-Hitler! Wörtlichüberpanzerkampfmaschinegehilfer-Hitler. Do I have to explain all this again?
Koko78 Posted September 13, 2018 Posted September 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Wörtlichüberpanzerkampfmaschinegehilfer-Hitler. Do I have to explain all this again? I had to English it up for the man!
Kevbeau Posted September 13, 2018 Posted September 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: I had to English it up for the man! Cmon... what part of Wörtlichüberpanzerkampfmaschinegehilfer Don’t you understand ?
Recommended Posts