• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bob Knight was Investigated by the FBI

Allinsky! Alinssky!ALINSKY!

Just scream it!

Scream it again!

That will make it true.
 
You just linked something stating that Obama and Clinton are "dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional system".

Now that, my friend, is #FAKENEWS
 
Actually I live Behind the Orange Curtain. Orange County is very, very heavily Republican. My Congressman is Dana Rorabacher. But keep on losing control.

As to being a "crazy, raving, radical leftist political agitator", you should look at what many of the lefties said about me during the primaries.

My bad, anyone to the left of Mussolini is radically left to Loh.
 
Are you saying that makes you conservative by definition? Or maybe tones down your radical Leftism by association? You sound psychotic.

NO! You're losing control!!!11!! LMAO
 
You brought up Hollyweird as a way to label me. I simply told you the truth.

you are the one out on an island here.
 
Lohengrin said:
It's an opinion. Not news. Learn the difference junior. You can take it for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

So in response to a Washington Post column (not an opinion, pure objective fact) that you call fake news, you post an opinion article to rebut "[ChrisL68's] Leader".

Alright, I'm really done now. I initially thought we could have a legitimate conversation about why you keep calling factual columns "fake news" and "hit pieces", but it's pretty clear that we cannot. When pressed on defining your journalistic standards you just go off on a tangent about something not even remotely related to the topic at hand. I have no idea what you are even debating or arguing at this point, while continuing to call a newspaper that is one of the pillars of journalism in the nation, and has been for many years, "fake news".

You're either trolling to JHMD's lengths (I hope?) or you've got some pretty out there opinions that aren't rooted in a lot of reality. Good day to you sir either way. Hope your academic and work accomplishments keep you going through the day.
 
Last edited:
Loh's crazy psychobabble on sports topics makes much more sense now. He is certifiabily delusional.
 
BarcaDeac said:
No, I genuinely am. My first job out of Wake was a newspaper reporter and I did my damnedest to adhere to standards I had been taught. Just want to see how they line up with yours and why the WaPo's don't.
Click to expand...

I am very intrigued to hear what you think the current state of reporting represents...
Is it objective? Is it fair? Is is biased? Is it trying to sell an agenda? Does it even report news? Do you think the NYT and WaPo are objective or slanted?

My take is I can remember when news anchors would report news straightforwardly and later provide an editorial. The screen would display EDITORIAL behind them or there would be a disclaimer. Now, in my opinion as a viewer it appears all reports are editorialized. I hear an undercover report where producers indicate the news of the day -the Trump Russia relationship- is a hoax but it has been good for ratings so they keep running with it.

You look at the big rush and reaction to Don Jr. meeting with a lawyer from Russia and you have Senators calling it treason. You had the members of the DNC (don't know if they were directly connected with a campaign) meet with Ukrainians and actual exchange info. There is very limited reporting of this and certainly no outcry or accusations of treason. How can Chuck Schumer get away with demanding that all text and correspondence be turned over without demanding the same from the DNC whose servers would go along way to ending the debate by letting the FBI look at it. Where is the press clamoring for this? They are not. In my mind, yet another example in a long list of my favorite soapbox that the reaction to very similar events is a function solely of what party is involved.

It makes me wonder if there is any news reporting any more? As such, I am interested in hearing your perspective. BTW, how long were you in the industry and did you see any changes to the approach of presenting news or the politicitation of it?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
So in response to a Washington Post column (not an opinion, pure objective fact) that you call fake news, you post an opinion article to rebut "[ChrisL68's] Leader".

Alright, I'm really done now. I initially thought we could have a legitimate conversation about why you keep calling factual columns fake news, but it's pretty clear that we cannot. When pressed on defining your journalistic standards you just go off on a tangent about something not even remotely related to the topic at hand. I have no idea what you are even debating or arguing at this point.

You're either trolling to JHMD's lengths (I hope?) or you've got some pretty out there opinions that aren't rooted in a lot of reality. Good day to you sir either way. Hope your academic and work accomplishments keep you going through the day.
Click to expand...

You're being tiresome, again. The sentence or clause you quoted was obviously an opinion. The piece itself provided news and opinion. I realize that kind of complex writing may fluster you, but I assure you it's all valid in more advanced circles.
 
oldmandeac said:
I am very intrigued to hear what you think the current state of reporting represents...
Is it objective? Is it fair? Is is biased? Is it trying to sell an agenda? Does it even report news? Do you think the NYT and WaPo are objective or slanted?

My take is I can remember when news anchors would report news straightforwardly and later provide an editorial. The screen would display EDITORIAL behind them or there would be a disclaimer. Now, in my opinion as a viewer it appears all reports are editorialized. I hear an undercover report where producers indicate the news of the day -the Trump Russia relationship- is a hoax but it has been good for ratings so they keep running with it.

You look at the big rush and reaction to Don Jr. meeting with a lawyer from Russia and you have Senators calling it treason. You had the members of the DNC (don't know if they were directly connected with a campaign) meet with Ukrainians and actual exchange info. There is very limited reporting of this and certainly no outcry or accusations of treason. How can Chuck Schumer get away with demanding that all text and correspondence be turned over without demanding the same from the DNC whose servers would go along way to ending the debate by letting the FBI look at it. Where is the press clamoring for this? They are not. In my mind, yet another example in a long list of my favorite soapbox that the reaction to very similar events is a function solely of what party is involved.

It makes me wonder if there is any news reporting any more? As such, I am interested in hearing your perspective. BTW, how long were you in the industry and did you see any changes to the approach of presenting news or the politicitation of it?
Click to expand...

It was ONE Senator calling it "possible treason".

Next it wasn't a "member of the DNC" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukraine-try-to-interfere-in-the-2016-election/

"It wasn't so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort's extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C.

The Democratic National Committee denies that it was ever in contact with the Ukrainian government."

Compare that to the meetings we know took place with Jared Kushner, Manafort, Donnie, Jr., and others had with Russians while working for the campaign.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
I love it. What did 60-70 year old men do before the internet to pass their time and share their shitty views? Was this why there was such high participation that is now dwindling in rotary and lions clubs? Is Wednesday night bingo suffering?
Click to expand...

Wow... this says a lot about what the problem is. I can remember during Hannity and Colmes how the "debate" would devolve into a shouting match usually by the left guest where the same talking point would be shouted over and over. It served to be an effective way to avoid providing direct answers to questions.

While this tactic is still used, the younger crowd who have even less of a chance of contributing a valid point to a debate simply try to denigrate those who don't agree with them.

To answer your question, those 60-70 year old men worked to support families and children like you only to be disappointed with what uninteresting and sniffling brats they became. And for the record, RJ is older than I, but he is no doubt exempt from your old men scorn because he is aligned politically with you
 
RJKarl said:
It was ONE Senator calling it "possible treason".

Next it wasn't a "member of the DNC" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukraine-try-to-interfere-in-the-2016-election/

"It wasn't so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort's extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C.

The Democratic National Committee denies that it was ever in contact with the Ukrainian government."

Compare that to the meetings we know took place with Jared Kushner, Manafort, Donnie, Jr., and others had with Russians while working for the campaign.
Click to expand...

RJ read what is in bold. The situation is almost identical you could almost replace the players and have an exact description of the Trump Jr. situation. If there is a major difference is the Dems reached out and initiated the action which is not the case with Jr. Yet, either you are too bias to see it or want to justify one action while condemning another. Both sides were opened to getting dirt on the other.

So, what's your take on Podesta, $35 million, his Board seat with a Putin backed company, and the arrangement giving Russia access to 20% of US plutonium? Nothing to be concerned with there? But Trump taking a meeting on possibly licensing the Trump name for some Moscow hotels before he was a candidate is evidence of ongoing collusion? It would be too funny if not so sad.
 
Last edited:
While this is certainly riveting and full of hot takes, can we move this pissing match to the Tunnels now, since that's where you all talk at each other already? Thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top