I did not realize Obamacare cost increases over the last few years were all Trumps Fault

cool2burn

cool2burn

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yeah, they used a compromised foreign agent named michael flynn, and an aol.com email account (LOL) which had already been hacked once.

you're literally retarded.
Click to expand...
Sorry dude Clapper put the last nail in the Russian Collusion Lie yesterday...
 
HAF2

HAF2

Well-Known Member
cool2burn said:
Sorry dude Clapper put the last nail in the Russian Collusion Lie yesterday...
Click to expand...
We must have been watching something different, that's not the impression I got.

"3. Clapper and Yates undercut one of the Trump White House's strongest arguments

Throughout the Russia probes, the Trump White House has pointed to testimony earlier this year from Clapper that he had seen no evidence in the January intelligence report of collusion between the President's campaign and Russia. That was before FBI Director James Comey publicly revealed that the FBI was, in fact, investigating that question.

Clapper said Comey's March 20 testimony was the first he heard of the FBI investigation. He later said that his original assessment was that there was no evidence he had seen worth including in the intelligence assessment -- but Yates later said that she could not answer the question because she did not want to reveal any classified information.

The implication from both officials' testimonies was that there may, indeed, be evidence of collusion -- this after months of the White House arguing that Clapper was clear there is no evidence."

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/08/politics/sally-yates-hearing-russia-things-we-learned/index.html
 
HAF2

HAF2

Well-Known Member
cool2burn said:
There was nothing new put out yesterday however http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-clapper-still-no-evidence-of-any-russian-collusion-with-trump-campaign/article/2622452
Click to expand...
Nothing new, because one person couldn't comment on it because of matters of national security and the other person didn't know about the investigation.

It was new that Sally Yates told the White House about Micheal Flynn being compromised by Russian ties and the White House took 18 days (after leaks to the press about Russian involvement) to fire him. Seems like an awfully long time to deal with such an urgent matter. It almost seems like they only fired him because the truth was leaked. Kind of seems like that.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
cool2burn said:
Sorry dude Clapper put the last nail in the Russian Collusion Lie yesterday...
Click to expand...
Flat Earth...

Here is what he said: "The Russians used cyber operations against both political parties, including hacking into servers used by the Democratic National Committee and releasing stolen data to WikiLeaks and other media outlets. Russia also collected on certain Republican Party-affiliated targets, but did not release any Republican-related data. The Intelligence Community Assessment concluded first that President Putin directed and influenced campaign to erode the faith and confidence of the American people in our presidential election process. Second, that he did so to demean Secretary Clinton, and third, that he sought to advantage Mr. Trump. These conclusions were reached based on the richness of the information gathered and analyzed and were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me."
 
HAF2

HAF2

Well-Known Member
Grandpapy said:
Flat Earth...

Here is what he said: "The Russians used cyber operations against both political parties, including hacking into servers used by the Democratic National Committee and releasing stolen data to WikiLeaks and other media outlets. Russia also collected on certain Republican Party-affiliated targets, but did not release any Republican-related data. The Intelligence Community Assessment concluded first that President Putin directed and influenced campaign to erode the faith and confidence of the American people in our presidential election process. Second, that he did so to demean Secretary Clinton, and third, that he sought to advantage Mr. Trump. These conclusions were reached based on the richness of the information gathered and analyzed and were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me."
Click to expand...
Until there is a video of someone telling trump "Russia is trying to make you win the election" and trump responding with "cool beans" it seems that some people are never going to buy the fact that trump and his camp knew about it.

And even then people might try to explain it as "locker room talk".
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
Yeah, but some folks believe that news is a public service and that the profit motive has only recently fucked it up.
Click to expand...
My opinion on the matter is that it became that. If you look at the television news in the first stage of development - and the radio for that matter, it was largely controlled by educated white guys that represented an elite. They acted as the gatekeepers of information and were not really expected to make money. This is at a time when Jack Parr was losing The Tonight Show for uttering the words "water closet.". Now try to imagine Walter Cronkite delivering a story about a Kardashian. There a huge ivory tower and they treated the news like a sacred trust.

But that was a fantasy doomed to come to an end. Finally, there were enough networks that the dam started to break. Somebody got the idea to put on a television show devoted to news about entertainers and the Trump era really got rolling. It succeeded beyond their wildest imagination by tapping into a need that was always there but only fulfilled by People magazine and the National Inquirer. To add to the downfall, the Internet happened. People took to it in droves and the old standards of journalism melted away.

I think it only happened because of a temporary blip in technology where television was tightly controlled and dominated as an information source. if you go back before that, journalism was highly competitive and hugely irresponsible in it's coverage of the news - kind of like it is today.
 
HAF2

HAF2

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
My opinion on the matter is that it became that. If you look at the television news in the first stage of development - and the radio for that matter, it was largely controlled by educated white guys that represented an elite. They acted as the gatekeepers of information and were not really expected to make money. This is at a time when Jack Parr was losing The Tonight Show for uttering the words "water closet.". Now try to imagine Walter Cronkite delivering a story about a Kardashian. There a huge ivory tower and they treated the news like a sacred trust.

But that was a fantasy doomed to come to an end. Finally, there were enough networks that the dam started to break. Somebody got the idea to put on a television show devoted to news about entertainers and the Trump era really got rolling. It succeeded beyond their wildest imagination by tapping into a need that was always there but only fulfilled by People magazine and the National Inquirer. To add to the downfall, the Internet happened. People took to it in droves and the old standards of journalism melted away.

I think it only happened because of a temporary blip in technology where television was tightly controlled and dominated as an information source. if you go back before that, journalism was highly competitive and hugely irresponsible in it's coverage of the news - kind of like it is today.
Click to expand...
IMG_9573.GIF

His name was Ron Burgundy, and he started it all.
 
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
My opinion on the matter is that it became that. If you look at the television news in the first stage of development - and the radio for that matter, it was largely controlled by educated white guys that represented an elite. They acted as the gatekeepers of information and were not really expected to make money. This is at a time when Jack Parr was losing The Tonight Show for uttering the words "water closet.". Now try to imagine Walter Cronkite delivering a story about a Kardashian. There a huge ivory tower and they treated the news like a sacred trust.

But that was a fantasy doomed to come to an end. Finally, there were enough networks that the dam started to break. Somebody got the idea to put on a television show devoted to news about entertainers and the Trump era really got rolling. It succeeded beyond their wildest imagination by tapping into a need that was always there but only fulfilled by People magazine and the National Inquirer. To add to the downfall, the Internet happened. People took to it in droves and the old standards of journalism melted away.

I think it only happened because of a temporary blip in technology where television was tightly controlled and dominated as an information source. if you go back before that, journalism was highly competitive and hugely irresponsible in it's coverage of the news - kind of like it is today.
Click to expand...
When radio became a thing--people marveled at how it could revolutionize education by transmitting information instantaneously for miles and miles via radio waves. When television became a thing in the late 1940s, people marveled at how it would revolutionize education by transmitting visual information for miles and miles away via analog signals. When the internet was opened to commercial development in the late 1980s and early 1990s, people marveled at how it would revolutionize education by transmitting large volumes of data nearly instantaneously, and they called it the "information superhighway."

Then advertising and entertainment got a hold of all of these mediums, and the rest is history. We're superficial beings. We like shiny things and we want to be entertained, not educated.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
When radio became a thing--people marveled at how it could revolutionize education by transmitting information instantaneously for miles and miles via radio waves. When television became a thing in the late 1940s, people marveled at how it would revolutionize education by transmitting visual information for miles and miles away via analog signals. When the internet was opened to commercial development in the late 1980s and early 1990s, people marveled at how it would revolutionize education by transmitting large volumes of data nearly instantaneously, and they called it the "information superhighway."

Then advertising and entertainment got a hold of all of these mediums, and the rest is history. We're superficial beings. We like shiny things and we want to be entertained, not educated.
Click to expand...
Good thing that Herr Trumpo is rolling back net neutrality laws.
 
HAF2

HAF2

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
When radio became a thing--people marveled at how it could revolutionize education by transmitting information instantaneously for miles and miles via radio waves. When television became a thing in the late 1940s, people marveled at how it would revolutionize education by transmitting visual information for miles and miles away via analog signals. When the internet was opened to commercial development in the late 1980s and early 1990s, people marveled at how it would revolutionize education by transmitting large volumes of data nearly instantaneously, and they called it the "information superhighway."

Then advertising and entertainment got a hold of all of these mediums, and the rest is history. We're superficial beings. We like shiny things and we want to be entertained, not educated.
Click to expand...
Porn. You forgot about the porn.

IMG_9575.JPG
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top