Reply With Quote
"Anonymous sources say...."Originally Posted by Midnightrider
Clearly bull####. If it weren't, there would be names. NYT and WashPo - do they even have any sources? Every story it's some figment of their imagination telling them stuff.
The Times ‘exposé’ on Donald Trump Jr. is a big yawn
Having established the smear of “collusion,” the Times must now link every story with the word “Russia” to it in the hopes that the rubes and suckers won’t stop believing that Trump somehow cheated his way into the White House.
Hasn’t the Times learned its lesson from its disastrous Feb. 14 story, also anonymously sourced, about the Trump campaign’s “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence?” In his congressional testimony last month, former FBI director James Comey said: “In the main, it was not true.”
But then, so are the other “collusion” stories the left is trying to peddle as proof of some sinister plot to subvert democracy. And all because they refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. As the president might say: Sad!
We’re tempted to suggest a conspiracy here — but it’s just liberals agreeing yet again that conservatives have hidden, evil motives, because modern liberals simply can’t conceive of any other reason to disagree with the liberal consensus.
“Moral precepts are constant through the ages and not obedient to circumstances.”
"Anonymous sources say...."
Clearly bull####. If it weren't, there would be names. NYT and WashPo - do they even have any sources? Every story it's some figment of their imagination telling them stuff.
"Too much agreement kills a chat."
~Eldridge Cleaver
No, because their readers are psychos who want to believe. It's like a Scientology newsletter - it's not meant for you or me, only for the faithful.
"Too much agreement kills a chat."
~Eldridge Cleaver
Indeed
We’re tempted to suggest a conspiracy here — but it’s just liberals agreeing yet again that conservatives have hidden, evil motives, because modern liberals simply can’t conceive of any other reason to disagree with the liberal consensus.
“Moral precepts are constant through the ages and not obedient to circumstances.”
As long as the "Trump cheated!" story persists - and all the versions that will follow - as long as it never gains any traction, it can only serve to blind Democrats as to why their candidate lost last November. They refuse to believe they lost on rational, reasonable grounds. They continue the belief that they were robbed, that Hillary was superior and the only reason Trump won was that the country, after electing a black President twice, suddenly became unconscionably racist and vile and elected a tyrant.
I've had this conversation in various forms over the past MANY years - if you lose a game/an election/a job/a beauty contest - to a *turd* - that says more about YOU than about your opponent or god help you, the people calling the decisions. So - you can blame the judges/voters/refs/interviewers but - you lost.
When you lose a beauty contest to a turd, you NEED to check the mirror, not the ballots.
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster
They've been using that line of #### since 2000.
maybe because he denied having met with the Russians, then said they only met to talk about adoption, then came out and admitted the purpose of the meeting was for the campaign to gain usable information from the Russians for use against his opponent in the election.
are you calling DJT jr an unnamed source?
Jr. admitted that he and the campaign were baited by the possibility of working with the Russians.
"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"-TGD
And the response I had was - this was a SITTING Vice-President to an otherwise popular President
- it SHOULD have been a slam dunk. He SHOULD have been able to win *easily*. No razor-thin photo-finishes.
If you really bought into how superior Gore was to Bush - then why couldn't Gore even win HIS OWN HOME STATE?
You know, sometimes a football game comes down to a single field goal attempt - and if that guy misses, morons will blame HIM for the loss.
And I will say hey, they had a whole four quarters of football to beat the other team. You're going to blame the whole game on a few seconds?
This was a guy who had everything going for him. Well, except Bill Clinton. People simply didn't like the guy.
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster
LMAO. And there one is now...ole MR.
"Dark humor is like food. Not everyone gets it." - J. Stalin
Members who have read this thread: 0
Posting Permissions
