Trump mocks wounded soldiers, worries about his hair getting wet
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
True the Soviets were égalité but they were very short in the liberté and fraternité departments.
What the racists, misogynists and other bigots don't see that the Soviets were seeing is that every person is an asset. To not use every asset possible in order to accomplish a goal is sheer stupidity because it risks mission failure and/or excessive cost.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
That's what I wrote.
Does this mean that your question was too unimportant to repeat? Should I thank you for not wasting my time?
Whatever the question is/was, I don't recall you ever having asked me before, am I right?It's not like it's the first time, amirite?
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
You're not very good at economics. Ask me how I know.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
At least they didn't get captured. I like people who weren't captured.
Of course it is.
No, but you are free to assume anything you like. It's you who are wasting your time telling others they are wasting your time. Do you often blame others for your mistakes and faults?
Deja vu. Haven't we already covered your inability to recall previous conversations?
In theory and constitutional principle, they were more egalitarian. But the fact is that women in the medical, engineering, and technical professions were still under paid compared to men.
I will acknowledge that for all the oppression and crimes of Soviet totalitarianism, the Marxist ideology did inspire some things that benefited women: vastly increased literacy and educational opportunities compared to tsarist Russia, better civil rights in marriage, divorce, property.
Any vet who still supports this disgusting abomination, Trump, should check into a mental hospital.
Sure, INT/IBDa/gfm, feel free to educate me on your expertise in economics.
BTW, we're not talking counting potatoes here. That's how Trump looks at it; as a potato counting exercise. "Men are not potatoes!"
Not enough of those for everyone who needs it regardless of political affiliation.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Freedom! YES! I'm going to start assuming things I like. Thank you.
Nope. I am spending my time helping others prevent wasting theirs.
I can't because I don't make mistakes and I have no faults. It's part of the reason I don't have any friends. Nobody likes a know-it-all Mr. Perfect.
Sorry, I forgot what the question was.
You're welcome.
Ummm...a matter of debate.
An interesting revelation. Thanks.
No worries. You've answered it.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I’ll wager the anonymous source is Frank lol.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Every source in The Atlantic article is anonymous. Now, that, in and of itself, is not necessarily an indication that the story is not true. However, each and every other fake bombshell, shocking, game-changing, disqualifying, walls-are-closing-in, Trump should be forced to resign story over the past four years has also been anonymously sourced.
CNN alerted us that Donald Trump Jr. had received advanced notice of the Wikileaks email drop in the 2016 campaign, based on anonymous sources. They were wrong.
CNN also blared at us that James Comey would refute Trump's contention that he had told him on three occasions that he was not under FBI investigation. Anonymous sources assured them of this. They were wrong.
Buzzfeed "reported" that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had direct evidence proving that Trump had directed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to congress. They were wrong.
I could go on and on (Kurt Schlichter already has in his new book).
The point is, the media keeps protecting the anonymity of their sources, even when their sources get it wrong. Why is that? I would think that when a reporter gets burned by an anonymous source, they would be the first to expose that anonymous source as a fraud. Wouldn't you?
You would if reporting facts and the truth were your sole priority. If your priority were instead to maintain a connection to well-placed individuals who can keep feeding you outrageous stories (whether they are true and verifiable or not), then you would continue to nurture that relationship.
Clearly, reporters in D.C. are rewarded for spewing forth anonymous stories about Trump. Whether those stories are accurate or not are secondary if even considered at all.
And after spending the last four years spending the currency of trust they held with the American people on lie after lie after lie, the bank account which stores that currency is overdrawn. We owe them nothing; they owe us.
They owe us something a little more substantial than more anonymous sources claiming horrific things about Donald Trump in yet another bombshell, shocking, game-changing, disqualifying, walls-are-closing-in, Trump should be forced to resign story.
https://townhall.com/columnists/lar...ump-scandals-for-the-past-four-years-n2575671
CNN alerted us that Donald Trump Jr. had received advanced notice of the Wikileaks email drop in the 2016 campaign, based on anonymous sources. They were wrong.
CNN also blared at us that James Comey would refute Trump's contention that he had told him on three occasions that he was not under FBI investigation. Anonymous sources assured them of this. They were wrong.
Buzzfeed "reported" that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had direct evidence proving that Trump had directed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to congress. They were wrong.
I could go on and on (Kurt Schlichter already has in his new book).
The point is, the media keeps protecting the anonymity of their sources, even when their sources get it wrong. Why is that? I would think that when a reporter gets burned by an anonymous source, they would be the first to expose that anonymous source as a fraud. Wouldn't you?
You would if reporting facts and the truth were your sole priority. If your priority were instead to maintain a connection to well-placed individuals who can keep feeding you outrageous stories (whether they are true and verifiable or not), then you would continue to nurture that relationship.
Clearly, reporters in D.C. are rewarded for spewing forth anonymous stories about Trump. Whether those stories are accurate or not are secondary if even considered at all.
And after spending the last four years spending the currency of trust they held with the American people on lie after lie after lie, the bank account which stores that currency is overdrawn. We owe them nothing; they owe us.
They owe us something a little more substantial than more anonymous sources claiming horrific things about Donald Trump in yet another bombshell, shocking, game-changing, disqualifying, walls-are-closing-in, Trump should be forced to resign story.
https://townhall.com/columnists/lar...ump-scandals-for-the-past-four-years-n2575671
If you were captured and then killed does that make you a double-loser?
seems to me Putin should come to Victory in Europe day and the US should attend V-Day. Martial prowness or not.
Small things like that help detente' I assume you still support a bettering of relations?
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Makes you a lightweight!