Reports Coming in that Michael Flynn Has Resigned.

a reply to: JinMI

You really are a child. Why do you want to ruin a perfectly good thread by having the mods come down on us?

Just quit already. Try arguing your side instead.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

You really are a child. Why do you want to ruin a perfectly good thread by having the mods come down on us?

Just quit already. Try arguing your side instead.

Coming from the person who spammed my thread with 3 pages of nonsense? Run along meow.

a reply to: JinMI

That's hard to believe. PM me and tell me what thread.

a reply to: Sillyolme

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Let me ask you this question. If someone from Obama's or Clinton's administration did the exact thing. Would you have the same conclusions?

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
It's ridiculous Russia is portrayed as this big bad boogeyman. It is totally unfair to the Russian people to deserve this. Sad to see Michael Flynn go. He is a good honorable man.

That's the problem. He wasn't part of an administration at the time. He was a private citizen who violated the Logan Act. Then he lied to Pence about it causing Pence to like about it.

And now this.

www.hannity.com...

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has cleared retired LT. Gen. Michael Flynn of any wrongdoing in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak, according to a report in The Washington Post. It had been reported on Sunday that Flynn’s communications were under investigation by U.S. counterintelligence agents.

And fake news does it again.

a reply to: rickymouse

Sweet! I'm in a Tort class now, specifically 1st amendment-related issues. These are the current case studies under discussion and review.

1. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc.
2. Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.
3. Time v. Firestone
4. Hutchinson v. Proxmire
5. Ariel Sharon vs. Time Inc.
6. Gen. William Westmoreland vs. CBS
7. Herbert v. Lando
8. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
9. Moldea vs. New York Times
10. Masson v. The New Yorker Co.
11. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
12. ABC vs. Food Lion
13. Bartnicki v. Vopper
14. Hosty vs. Carter
15. Mink vs. Salazar
16. Dietemann vs. Time Inc.
17. Miller vs. NBC
18. McCall vs. Courier-Journal
19. Mark vs. King Broadcasting
20. Wilson v. Layne
21. Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn
22. The Florida Star v. BJF
23. Howard vs. Des Moines Register
24. Diaz vs. Oakland Tribune Inc.
25. Sipple vs. Chronicle Publishing
26. Jenkins vs. Dell Publishing Co.
27. Virgil vs. Time Inc.
28. Time Inc. v. Hill
29. Cibenk vs. Worth Publishing
30. Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.
31. Dempsey vs. National Enquirer
32. Denver Publishing Co. vs. Bueno

I'd love to read and present the case you referenced in class. Can you provide me a name or google scholar link?

Thanks!

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

I can't find the article anymore, I can't figure how to word it to get a focused search.

I did run across this article you might find interesting.

hbr.org...

a reply to: rickymouse

This I totally agree with:

Both parties know the articles are self-aggrandizing manipulations and fail to inform the public about the more complex but boring issues of government policy and activity.

I've made it very clear at our institutions "award winning" paper that I will not write about politics, period. There is no shortage of Freshmen for that job, to be honest. Let them find out, as I did, that the editorial policy of always including a rebuttal from the "opposing side" is nonsense.

Yes, in a debate between two or more sides, reporting on opposing views is important. I have no argument with that. My beef is more elemental. If my source tells me the sky is purple (not blue) or that talking albino Bigfeet rule the earth from beneath Mt. Shasta, I am not going to waste a single moment looking for a rebuttal to such clearly deranged assertions. Why should I? What value does it bring to my readers?

The answer is clearly none. There are no values that are preserved by such a policy, except "news values."

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to science writing, tabletop games and ad-sales. It's more honest, IMO.

The author's overall point is well taken, though. I will jerk-off a dragon before I take corporate PR and reformat it as news. I didn't pay good money for an education so that I might sneak up on mirrors sideways for the rest of my working life.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rollanotherone

I know the entire quote and obviously you don't and still think that line means something it doesn't.
That ignorance of the full quote falls directly on you.
Maybe you should look it up before throwing out another used up and incorrect excerpt.
Maybe not. Research isn't a strong suit of trump supporters. It hurts their head.

Anyway. It doesn't matter one bit at this moment.
LOL.

Wow. Just. Wow. The hypocrisy is off the charts with you. Selective reasoning is your strong suit. Talk about context, you are the queen of taking things out of context and pushing the spin your CTR overlords tell you to push. And yes, you are the queen of spamming threads with useless drivel. Many times, 4 to 5 at a time. Some would say, it's almost like you get paid per post.