Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Barneyboy

Is there a North Korean deal

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Barneyboy said:

Just shows what a fool you are.  Go back to my original posting for the genesis of this discussion.  Never mind, you're too damn stupid and I'm beginning to feel like I am regressing to your level of stupidity by even responding to your nonsense. 

B-Boy! I found a great article from the Washington Post that detailed how to get a job in Trump's administration. It was totally on point, the real deal. I'm not kidding. But anyway, you don't like the WP so I didn't include it. Here are a couple other resources that may help you: 

 

https://apply.whitehouse.gov/

https://www.ajc.com/business/employment/how-get-job-with-the-donald-trump-administration/Tbj6N3MKcBukcv9vjqRYXO/

(EDIT: I tried to find something more specific, like for-sure within California, but no go. I think you'll have to negotiate that later.) 
 

Now, they're looking for a variety of laborers as well. You may be able to pick up some contract work. Although if I may say so, it would perhaps be prudent to get your money up front before you go crackin' their walls. 

Do it! The door is in front of you! The time is now! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Alistair S said:

I guess it's what happens when the Fairness Doctrine disappears.

Sometimes I feel the rot started when the doctrine appeared to be inappropriately adopted by US news-rooms as a general editorial principle.  Let's call it "spin equilibrium".  I like that.  Sounds fancy and kinda authoritative.  Like all the best spin. 

 

This principle says that if a media organisation presents opinions in opposition - spin-equilibrium - then they can claim "objectivity" by implication.  No need for much concern with any real actual factual when spin-equilibrium, and the comfortably associative inferences about "balance"and "fairness", acts to absolve all chickenshit editors from the heavier critically interrogative duties of the fourth estate.

 

Not a very useful idea and possibly a pointless interference.

But it's the best I've got.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lazz said:

Sometimes I feel the rot started when the doctrine appeared to be inappropriately adopted by US news-rooms as a general editorial principle.  Let's call it "spin equilibrium".  I like that.  Sounds fancy and kinda authoritative.  Like all the best spin. 

 

This principle says that if a media organisation presents opinions in opposition - spin-equilibrium - then they can claim "objectivity" by implication.  No need for much concern with any real actual factual when spin-equilibrium, and the comfortably associative inferences about "balance"and "fairness", acts to absolve all chickenshit editors from the heavier critically interrogative duties of the fourth estate.

 

Not a very useful idea and possibly a pointless interference.

But it's the best I've got.

And it's a perfectly fair point! 

 

Maybe the issue we have is that "we" would rather hear "news" that feeds our prejudices - and there is money to be made from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Alistair S said:

I was quite shocked when I first watched "news" in the USA - surprised at the lack of balance or even truth (and the level of opinion reported as fact). Yes, Fox News was perhaps the first that caught my eye but, to be fair, both "sides" have channels that do it (and the idea of "sides" in public news broadcasting is shocking in itself). I guess it's what happens when the Fairness Doctrine disappears.

You're kidding, right?  Fox certainly can lay claim to be fair and balanced because they do employ leftists such as Juan Williams.  Where is the fair and balanced equivalence on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC or other so called mainstream news outlets?  Why do you think these leftist outlets do not bring up the topic of the Fairness Doctrine?  Answer, because 95% of their "news" are strictly leftist views. The Fairness Doctrine issue was a leftist cause to try and silence Rush Limbaugh. It didn't work then and it won't work in the future.  So, can we get on to some more pressing issues like killing net neutrality for good this time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess. You think killing net neutrality is a good idea?

 

I'll tell you what, explain, in your own words, what it is.

 

Edit:I have to add that, if the Fairness Doctrine was a leftist cause to try and silence Rush Limbaugh, it was prescient (as it was in place two years before he was born!)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Barneyboy said:

Fox certainly can lay claim to be fair and balanced because they do employ leftists such as Juan Williams. 

:blink: Absolutely Barney!

Matter of fact, that's what they're known for...fair & balanced propagation of the right wing agenda.

Quote

Fox News Channel has been widely described as having biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, Donald Trump and conservative causes

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/06/2018 at 23:06, spanishbuddha said:

I can understand the thought as Rodman is a celebrity basketball player, but he is friends with both President Trump and Kim Jong - Un.  You don't think having that friend in common is a positive for both sides in the process?  Could be a potential bridge.  Establishing commonality of some sort beyond mutual interest could be very useful and aid in continued ice breaking and negotiations.  

Hopefully someone with a grain of intelligence who isn't so easily buffaloed by faint praise and promises of profitable business ventures will hold KJU's feet to the fire on this and demand timetables and regular inspections throughout the process before actually making good on any of Trump's promises. I was heartened to hear Pompeo state that the sanctions will stay in place for now so perhaps this can move forward with a degree of care and responsibility.

 

Bringing China, SK and possibly even Japan into the negotiations would be wise, though I know this administration prefers to negotiate in isolation.  

 

Of course there's KJU himself who I trust about as much as I trust Trump. He's made these promises before and reneged. Having said that, I think it was time a world leader, even one in name only, took him seriously enough to pay him a visit. A little recognition that resembles respect might be all the Kim Jung's ever really wanted.

 

Time will tell, I suppose. I doubt Rodman can be of any more use to the process. If he had a bit to play or a bridge to build, he's already done it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alistair S said:

And it's a perfectly fair point! 

 

Maybe the issue we have is that "we" would rather hear "news" that feeds our prejudices - and there is money to be made from that.

The point can also be made that providing equal time to both sides in the current environment infers that both viewpoints are equally valid. I think most of us can agree that letting Alex Jones or Sean Hannity do counterpoint on any topic would be the height of cosmic unfairness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonie said:

The point can also be made that providing equal time to both sides in the current environment infers that both viewpoints are equally valid. I think most of us can agree that letting Alex Jones or Sean Hannity do counterpoint on any topic would be the height of cosmic unfairness. 

Agreed. I think giving equal time on every topic doesn't work either.

 

Maybe I just want journalists back.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barneyboy said:

 So, can we get on to some more pressing issues like killing net neutrality for good this time. 

I'm impressed. I had no idea you were an internet provider. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jonie said:

I think it was time a world leader, even one in name only, took him seriously enough to pay him a visit.

Un's pretty new, but in the past Clinton, Carter, and Albright met with the Kims. fwiw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Moso said:

Un's pretty new, but in the past Clinton, Carter, and Albright met with the Kims. fwiw

True (but were they Presidents at the time?).

 

But Un has been begging for a visit for a long time. Trump is the first to acquiesce. Most have refused bilateral talks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Moso said:

Un's pretty new, but in the past Clinton, Carter, and Albright met with the Kims. fwiw

Clinton and Carter weren't sitting Presidents when they met them. Maybe I should have clarified that in my post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's been in power since end of 2011/beginning of 2012, right? Can you tell us any more about Un's asking for a visit? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jonie said:

The point can also be made that providing equal time to both sides in the current environment infers that both viewpoints are equally valid.

This is the same tactic morons like the Discovery Institute use to crow bar creationism into public education.  Teach the controversy!  

lucille-portable.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangit Oz, don't you know that education is the brainwashing tool of the liberals/leftists/Hillary/Jezebel/Satan/Krampus??!! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

You're kidding, right?  Fox certainly can lay claim to be fair and balanced because they do employ leftists such as Juan Williams.  Where is the fair and balanced equivalence on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC or other so called mainstream news outlets?  Why do you think these leftist outlets do not bring up the topic of the Fairness Doctrine?  Answer, because 95% of their "news" are strictly leftist views. The Fairness Doctrine issue was a leftist cause to try and silence Rush Limbaugh. It didn't work then and it won't work in the future.  So, can we get on to some more pressing issues like killing net neutrality for good this time. 

Why do you do this B-boy? Is it that you get off on the rodeo like these others? You know that you could never change any one of these people's minds here.....right?

I hate to use the cliché; but it's like trying to re-teach the notion that 1+1 DOES NOT EQUAL ELEVEN. They are convinced.

I have a challenge to you B-boy.....if they don't have you to attack, where would they go to get their spoil? Let them stew in their own pot....that aught to get real cold, and fast. They would be reduced to "bait clicking" with posts designed to troll the site.

But do what you gotta do B-boy....I admire your tenacity, but the fight is one not worth fighting, here at the Muse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ironknee said:

Why do you do this B-boy? Is it that you get off on the rodeo like these others? You know that you could never change any one of these people's minds here.....right?

I hate to use the cliché; but it's like trying to re-teach the notion that 1+1 DOES NOT EQUAL ELEVEN. They are convinced.

I have a challenge to you B-boy.....if they don't have you to attack, where would they go to get their spoil? Let them stew in their own pot....that aught to get real cold, and fast. They would be reduced to "bait clicking" with posts designed to troll the site.

But do what you gotta do B-boy....I admire your tenacity, but the fight is one not worth fighting, here at the Muse.

Yeah, I know I'm vastly outnumbered but somebody's got to deal with the blind hate among that crowd.  I'm locked and loaded. I don't expect to change any minds I just want to be the voice for common sense - 2 words I know the libs hate.  We know who the trolls are, moso, tunesmith etc. Let them troll and think they're scoring points. It just cements their status as spiteful, frustrated leftists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

We know who the trolls are, moso, tunesmith etc. Let them troll and think they're scoring points. It just cements their status as spiteful, frustrated leftists.

 
Quote

 

Top definition
A mythological internet being that lives under an internet bridge. Loves to hunt for innocent netizens.

Common tactics: antagonizing other netizens by posting racist or offensive comments
Weakness: being outwitted or unable to antagonize others

 

The Urban Dictionary lists that as their top definition Barney.
Several members have used the term frequently to refer to people they don't particularly like, but seriously...who comes closer to fitting that description...you or I ?
 
Tom 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that we forget that all politicians ultimately piss in the same pot,

Prime example, all of Corbyn’s political life he has been anti E U.  And as soon has gets a real chance of getting out, he jumps ship!

Like the media they are paid liars, run by the men in grey or equivalents, who dance to the tune of the oligarchs

and all we do do is soak up their bullshit and turn on each other, which is what they want, Divide And Rule,

Meanwhile our planet is dying and most people are ether unaware or don’t give a fuck!

We are' I’m sure all caring passionate humans who have strong opinions which is great,

Don't sink to the level of the paid liars, by fighting ammongst ourselves 

Mike Clements

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tunesmithth said:
 
The Urban Dictionary lists that as their top definition Barney.
Several members have used the term frequently to refer to people they don't particularly like, but seriously...who comes closer to fitting that description...you or I ?
 
Tom 

Seems like I've touched a nerve so I'd say mission accomplished.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

Seems like I've touched a nerve so I'd say mission accomplished.

You just made his case for him if you're being truthful in saying that your mission here is to rile people up. Personally, I've never considered you a troll but I may have to rethink my opinion in light of your confession. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonie said:

You just made his case for him if you're being truthful in saying that your mission here is to rile people up. Personally, I've never considered you a troll but I may have to rethink my opinion in light of your confession. 

 

1 hour ago, jonie said:

You just made his case for him if you're being truthful in saying that your mission here is to rile people up. Personally, I've never considered you a troll but I may have to rethink my opinion in light of your confession. 

Come on, jonie. I started this thread and you suspect me of being a troll on my own thread. Really?  Next question is: do you really think I care if you rethink your opinion? 

 

 Several members have used the term frequently to refer to people they don't particularly like

Are you one of these people, jonie?

Edited by Barneyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

I started this thread and you suspect me of being a troll on my own thread. Really?

You could totally be a troll on your own thread. Heck, you could start a thread based on trolling intention. They're not mutually exclusive. 

What Jonie's pointing out is that you have a logic error in your argument. Actually, in this thread I've seen you make at least three rudimentary logic errors, and I mean this in the sense of like basic philosophy or "mathematical" type logic errors. 

3 hours ago, jonie said:

Personally, I've never considered you a troll but I may have to rethink my opinion in light of your confession. 

B-boy absolutely does try to rile people up sometimes. And not just in these political boards. In the core/art section of the Muse, I've seen him do it plenty of times. Heck, once I saw him try to turn two people against each other, and it was due to just a mix of that they didn't agree with him and he was confused about what they were saying. I don't remember it going over very well... 
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Moso said:

You could totally be a troll on your own thread. Heck, you could start a thread based on trolling intention. They're not mutually exclusive. 

What Jonie's pointing out is that you have a logic error in your argument. Actually, in this thread I've seen you make at least three rudimentary logic errors, and I mean this in the sense of like basic philosophy or "mathematical" type logic errors. 

B-boy absolutely does try to rile people up sometimes. And not just in these political boards. In the core/art section of the Muse, I've seen him do it plenty of times. Heck, once I saw him try to turn two people against each other, and it was due to just a mix of that they didn't agree with him and he was confused about what they were saying. I don't remember it going over very well... 
 

Gee, did you just have a cerebral moment or just spitting out your usual nonsense?  No, don't answer, I know it's the latter. Why don't you specifically point out my logic errors? What's a philosophy logic error, genius? For that matter, what's a mathematical type logic error?  You know, I am going to nominate for the knucklehead Muser award.  You make a lot of accusations but provide no evidence and that puts you right up at the head of the class of knuckleheads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

Gee, did you just have a cerebral moment or just spitting out your usual nonsense?  No, don't answer, I know it's the latter. Why don't you specifically point out my logic errors? What's a philosophy logic error, genius? For that matter, what's a mathematical type logic error?  You know, I am going to nominate for the knucklehead Muser award.  You make a lot of accusations but provide no evidence and that puts you right up at the head of the class of knuckleheads. 

Well, okay. Um, the three things that came to mind when I was writing the previous post were… 

1) When trying to accuse me of trolling, you said, “Speaking of trolls, maybe you should check out who started this thread.”  😂
We can chalk this one up to you having just “misspoken”. But it was pretty funny. 

 

2) You said twice that the only people who criticize the Prez were “left wing lunatics”, so I said that GOPers also criticized the Prez. You replied that you had specified that GOPers weren’t criticizing the Prez over meeting Un. Which you hadn't, but that was fine. So I showed you a GOP official who fit the new criteria. You then got really upset, called me names, and resorted to a straw man argument, completely ignoring what we were really talking about. 🙈

 

3) Tunesmith brought up the definition of internet troll as someone who likes to antagonize others by intentionally being offensive. You responded by saying your mission was to get people upset, with the exact words “Seems like I’ve touched a nerve so I’d say mission accomplished”. So Jonie pointed out you were, by tunesmith’s definition, calling yourself a troll. (Second time you did that this thread!🤣) 

 

B-boy, you’re gonna have to learn to laugh at yourself. Especially if you’re going to keep making comments like these! There's gold in them there hills! Enjoy it! 

EDIT: 

Here's a quick n' simple page about logical fallacies. (I thought we called them logic errors back in the day, but maybe I mixed that up with programming classes.) Anyway, it's pretty darn interesting, and very useful for a lot of these threads:

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

EDIT2:
Oh, and the "mathematical" statement was because I remember way back in UH undergrad, I took this (Philosophy of) Logic class, and we totally had to break down language into math/logic equations. Surely you're thinking, wow, what a cool thing to do! Right? Right...


It was an incredibly boring class.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin equilibrium.    P/L> JI 

       It used to be that a journalist or a journalist organization would bend over backwards to be scrupulously honest and careful in reporting because they realized that credibility was everything.  All the credentials on the wall and all the years of experience don't mean anything if you lost your credibility. After someone lost it they rarely could ever get it back.  Ask Dan Rather. 

        Editors would drill this into their proteges. There used to be such a thing as journalistic standards.  I can remember the big 3 american networks were not really constrained by profit /loss because the parent companies viewed their role in the 4th estate as almost a sacred duty-damn the costs. But all that changed. 

        I think all that changed when cable news arrived. Cable and the internet pretty much destroyed the newspaper's profit margins, but then the proliferation of cable and now internet forced a dozen or more cable news organizations into competing for a slice of the pie.  The big 3 are history in the sense that younger people have no idea what I'm even talking about. 

          As a network's pie slice shrunk network heads came up with decidedly non-journalistic strategies to compete. We're left with a group of strictly anti Trump networks and at least one thriving pro trump network, but we're also left with little or no journalistic standards because the honchos calling the shots are not journalism majors. They're MBAs.  P/L > JI    Profit over loss is of greater value than journalstic integrity. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moso said:

Well, okay. Um, the three things that came to mind when I was writing the previous post were… 

1) When trying to accuse me of trolling, you said, “Speaking of trolls, maybe you should check out who started this thread.”  😂
We can chalk this one up to you having just “misspoken”. But it was pretty funny. 

 

2) You said twice that the only people who criticize the Prez were “left wing lunatics”, so I said that GOPers also criticized the Prez. You replied that you had specified that GOPers weren’t criticizing the Prez over meeting Un. Which you hadn't, but that was fine. So I showed you a GOP official who fit the new criteria. You then got really upset, called me names, and resorted to a straw man argument, completely ignoring what we were really talking about. 🙈

 

3) Tunesmith brought up the definition of internet troll as someone who likes to antagonize others by intentionally being offensive. You responded by saying your mission was to get people upset, with the exact words “Seems like I’ve touched a nerve so I’d say mission accomplished”. So Jonie pointed out you were, by tunesmith’s definition, calling yourself a troll. (Second time you did that this thread!🤣) 

 

B-boy, you’re gonna have to learn to laugh at yourself. Especially if you’re going to keep making comments like these! There's gold in them there hills! Enjoy it! 

EDIT: 

Here's a quick n' simple page about logical fallacies. (I thought we called them logic errors back in the day, but maybe I mixed that up with programming classes.) Anyway, it's pretty darn interesting, and very useful for a lot of these threads:

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

EDIT2:
Oh, and the "mathematical" statement was because I remember way back in UH undergrad, I took this Logic class, and we totally had to breakdown language into math/logic equations. Surely you're thinking, wow, what a cool thing to do! Right? Right...


It was an incredibly boring class.

You wind the knucklehead award.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kuya said:

Spin equilibrium.    P/L> JI 

       It used to be that a journalist or a journalist organization would bend over backwards to be scrupulously honest and careful in reporting because they realized that credibility was everything.  All the credentials on the wall and all the years of experience don't mean anything if you lost your credibility. After someone lost it they rarely could ever get it back.  Ask Dan Rather. 

        Editors would drill this into their proteges. There used to be such a thing as journalistic standards.  I can remember the big 3 american networks were not really constrained by profit /loss because the parent companies viewed their role in the 4th estate as almost a sacred duty-damn the costs. But all that changed. 

        I think all that changed when cable news arrived. Cable and the internet pretty much destroyed the newspaper's profit margins, but then the proliferation of cable and now internet forced a dozen or more cable news organizations into competing for a slice of the pie.  The big 3 are history in the sense that younger people have no idea what I'm even talking about. 

          As a network's pie slice shrunk network heads came up with decidedly non-journalistic strategies to compete. We're left with a group of strictly anti Trump networks and at least one thriving pro trump network, but we're also left with little or no journalistic standards because the honchos calling the shots are not journalism majors. They're MBAs.  P/L > JI    Profit over loss is of greater value than journalstic integrity. 

Yes, I think that's about right (though I do believe that principled journalists still exist!).

 

In fact, I believe that one of the arguments to drop the Fairness Doctrine was that it was no longer necessary. The argument was made that it was important when there were few news sources but that, as news sources proliferate, there would be a natural balance across them all (what isn't reported in one place would be reported elsewhere).

 

There was some truth in that - but it ignored the simple fact that most people don't look across the gamut of news sources. Media organisations started to target specific market segments and people were served by the organisations targeting their segment. In turn, the media organisation would "tune" their voice to what the segment wanted to hear. 

 

Hey presto! We are living in bubbles with no big picture and nobody we can trust (so even valid news is distrusted by those who don't want to hear it).

 

Now add in social media. It may be surprising how many people treat social media as their main source of world news. And it's riddled with nonsense. 

 

To respond to this, we each need to take the time to do our research and drill down until we have some verifiable evidence - but that's time-consuming and most people don't do it. And, because we don't do it (and because we choose our news sources based on those that tell us what is happening in a way that coincides with our own views) we get the news we deserve. And vote based on it.

 

This is not a partisan issue. The problem is the same for all of us, whatever our political leanings.

 

IMHO.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Editorials have taken on the role of news reporting, where all news is filtered through the mouthpiece who is writing/speaking it.  I'll admit I probably read more editorials than an actual reporting of events because I find them interesting, especially those whose slant flows from a different and more bizarre mindset. But there is actually less independent and unfiltered news reporting being done or at least it's more time consuming to find, buried as it is under the new capitalist model of journalism. This new approach has everything to do with the ratings = profit incentive which has become the bottom line for the major news organizations. There's no money in reporting the news and letting people decide for themselves - they must be corralled into thinking a certain way to insure viewer loyalty.  Fox News has been so successful at this it has helped create (maybe not quite so intentionally) an environment where a dangerous, idiotic megalomaniac could be elected President and continue to serve, even now that the perverse error in voter judgement has become more than evident. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

You wind the knucklehead award.  

Apparently I passed gas.... 

------------------

 

@kuya & @Alistair S, good points, thank you. I agree there is some good journalism out there, often in the form of single journalists instead of groups, but even they get compromised time to time. Most of it I think is just emotional -- they'll finally blow their top over something and write a piece that is more frustration than facts. 

 

Any that you guys recommend? AP? Rather's new group? Klein? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I've posted this before (I may have done) but this isn't a million miles out:

 

Third-Edition-Full.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that one. From this graphic I tend to read AP, BBC, Reuters, The Economist, NPR, WSJ, Al Jazeera... Ah, yeah, Forbes isn't on here. I also like the cartoonist for the New Yorker.

But how about any individual reporters that you guys have noted as doing good journalism? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Moso said:

But how about any individual reporters ...

Everyone is fallible, but I do quite like George Monbiot. That may be my personal bias speaking, even though he does challenge my thinking at times (which I value)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/trump-nafta-g7-sunset-clause-trade-agreement

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/07/environmental-calamity-facts-steven-pinker

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/13/prostate-cancer-happy-diagnosis-operation

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta take off for a meeting, but I did a quick look over the first article. 

 

I do believe neocon/neolib ~ism has been in full force and needs to be stopped. I think a lot of people wanted that with the Donald, and some of the things he is trying to do may be muddling with some of their plans, but mostly he's just helping them out, whether or not that is his intention. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×