It might all be petty revenge.  Shoe on the other foot, etc.  
I'll say this:  You know the Republicans weren't serious back in 2012 because once Trump got in office, no one tried to prosecute Holder.  The matter was dropped.
Do the Democrats really think prosecuting or impeaching Barr would be in the public interest?

They have no plans to prosecute or impeach Barr. Their sole purpose right now is smearing him as much as possible to try to discredit his findings to the public on the origins of the Russia probe.

On a side note, the democrats have had a house majority for nearly 130 days and have accomplished nada.

Similarly, Republicans got almost nothing done during their first 130 days that started in January 2011 even though they had the House and the Senate.
What's the point if you know it'll be vetoed?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They didn't get the Senate back until Jan of 15

---

It might all be petty revenge.  Shoe on the other foot, etc.  
I'll say this:  You know the Republicans weren't serious back in 2012 because once Trump got in office, no one tried to prosecute Holder.  The matter was dropped.
Do the Democrats really think prosecuting or impeaching Barr would be in the public interest?

They have no plans to prosecute or impeach Barr. Their sole purpose right now is smearing him as much as possible to try to discredit his findings to the public on the origins of the Russia probe.

On a side note, the democrats have had a house majority for nearly 130 days and have accomplished nada.

They are running scared.  Lots of heads are going to roll.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

They have no plans to prosecute or impeach Barr. Their sole purpose right now is smearing him as much as possible to try to discredit his findings to the public on the origins of the Russia probe.

On a side note, the democrats have had a house majority for nearly 130 days and have accomplished nada.

They are running scared.  Lots of heads are going to roll.

No heads are rolling. This is all a big horse and pony show. Every side starts talking about prison and criminal charges, and amazingly nothing ever comes of it except some finance charges over people filling out the wrong forms. Politics is so dumb sometimes.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

This will all get dragged out until the election in an effort to boost one of their (Dem) candidates.

---

Just an update, section 2 of the Mueller report deals with potential obstruction of justice. It's a little over 200 pages. In the expanded, minimally redacted version there are only 2 full lines and 7 partial lines of redactions. These redactions (made with the input of the special counsel) have to do with grand jury testimony and are protected by federal law (section e 6. Of the federal code) This is the Watergate style cover up that the left is clinging to as their entire economic platform is being empirically disproven with every subsequent jobs report.

---

What's that have to do with what was posted? News is news. Most of it has bias. Filter through the bias and get the story. In this case, it's literally a video taken during a House Committee Meeting. What's your complaint?

Let's try to remember this the next time someone posts an article from CNN or another website that people don't like.

---

Well, it is a video of Nadler contradicting himself in 1998. Where was the insult? Liberals just deflect when they are wrong and have painted themselves into a corner. Not an insult, just fact.

So when you say "Let's just look at the facts. I know that's a challenge for you.", you didn't intend for that to be a direct shot at my intelligence?

I don't remember anyone claiming CNN shouldn't be linked to when they posted a full video. What they usually do however is claim a left wing opinion as a fact, or cite unnamed sources. Considering how many times they claimed Trump was finished based on insider knowledge from the Mueller investigation, CNN has lost all credibility as a source of objective truth.

And since you admit you criticized the post without first checking the facts it's probably more a shot at your laziness rather than a critique of your intelligence.

---

So, was that not Newman, err.. Nadler contradicting his current self in 1998 or no? Lets focus on the facts here Cleatwood. I know thats a challenge for you.

---

Thank you.

I'd be interested to view this video of Nadler supposedly contradicting himself if it was hosted by literally anyone other than Breitbart. Breitbart is a website that literally made its name by deceptively editing videos of public officials.

Can you post a link to video evidence of your claim about Breitbart?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Let's try to remember this the next time someone posts an article from CNN or another website that people don't like.

---

So when you say "Let's just look at the facts. I know that's a challenge for you.", you didn't intend for that to be a direct shot at my intelligence?

I don't remember anyone claiming CNN shouldn't be linked to when they posted a full video. What they usually do however is claim a left wing opinion as a fact, or cite unnamed sources. Considering how many times they claimed Trump was finished based on insider knowledge from the Mueller investigation, CNN has lost all credibility as a source of objective truth.

And since you admit you criticized the post without first checking the facts it's probably more a shot at your laziness rather than a critique of your intelligence.

CNN lost their credibility long before the Mueller investigation. Back in the early 2000's, NBC's family went left, FOX went right and CNN became a tabloid.

---

---

I'd be interested to view this video of Nadler supposedly contradicting himself if it was hosted by literally anyone other than Breitbart. Breitbart is a website that literally made its name by deceptively editing videos of public officials.

Can you post a link to video evidence of your claim about Breitbart?

Look up "Shirley Sherrod".

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Breitbart video obviously misrepresents Shirley Sherrod's position by only showing the negative portion of her speech without including the moral. I am not condoning what they did. However, saying Breitbart was built on that video is akin to saying CNN was built on the video of the HS students at the March for Life. They both are valid sources of news that fell victim to the editor/reporter/company's own personal bias that resulted in a misrepresented position. Brietbart was sued and settled for that video. They couldn't repeat that mistake over and over without going bankrupt. All media companies make errors. All of them. To hold one to a higher standard out of political expedience shows a lack of integrity. 

My objection stems from frequently seeing Fox or Breitbart immediately dismissed without any concern for the content. I have no qualms with the source material being scrutinized BECAUSE it came from a right leaning source (questioning the validity of anonymous sources, disregarding sensationalist headlines, pointing out charged rhetoric etc), but I do have a problem with the instant dismissal of a source because of it's leaning. The narrative might be twisted. The opinion might be skewed, but the facts are mostly true. If you don't want to watch it or read it, that's your prerogative. To categorically dismiss it seems foolish. 

This is not unlike people getting labeled "far right" for having any conservative opinion. They are ad hominems that essentially attack the source of the information without having to consider it. I don't care if  you're on the left or right, consider what's being put in front of you.

---

---

Can you post a link to video evidence of your claim about Breitbart?

Look up "Shirley Sherrod".

I looked up the name and there was a vague description of how the rest of her speech contained the point that she learned from her mistake. I don't see how saying she realized later that she was wrong changes anything.

So that's one failed example on your part (and still not an actual video link).

Try again.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Let's try to remember this the next time someone posts an article from CNN or another website that people don't like.

---

So when you say "Let's just look at the facts. I know that's a challenge for you.", you didn't intend for that to be a direct shot at my intelligence?

I don't remember anyone claiming CNN shouldn't be linked to when they posted a full video. What they usually do however is claim a left wing opinion as a fact, or cite unnamed sources. Considering how many times they claimed Trump was finished based on insider knowledge from the Mueller investigation, CNN has lost all credibility as a source of objective truth.

And since you admit you criticized the post without first checking the facts it's probably more a shot at your laziness rather than a critique of your intelligence.

---

I'd be interested to view this video of Nadler supposedly contradicting himself if it was hosted by literally anyone other than Breitbart. Breitbart is a website that literally made its name by deceptively editing videos of public officials.

Can you post a link to video evidence of your claim about Breitbart?

Lol It's not laziness either.

I have no problem opening up links that certain posters put on here. However, there are absolutely certain posters who post things that have an extremely one sided view of things. Far right and far left.

CNN, Fox News and Breitbart.... They're all the same.

---

I don't remember anyone claiming CNN shouldn't be linked to when they posted a full video. What they usually do however is claim a left wing opinion as a fact, or cite unnamed sources. Considering how many times they claimed Trump was finished based on insider knowledge from the Mueller investigation, CNN has lost all credibility as a source of objective truth.

And since you admit you criticized the post without first checking the facts it's probably more a shot at your laziness rather than a critique of your intelligence.

---

Can you post a link to video evidence of your claim about Breitbart?

Lol It's not laziness either.

I have no problem opening up links that certain posters put on here. However, there are absolutely certain posters who post things that have an extremely one sided view of things. Far right and far left.

CNN, Fox News and Breitbart.... They're all the same.

I agree about CNN and Breitbart. Fox News tends to play things straight, although frequently they are the only one willing to print a story that puts the Left in a bad light.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Look up "Shirley Sherrod".

I looked up the name and there was a vague description of how the rest of her speech contained the point that she learned from her mistake. I don't see how saying she realized later that she was wrong changes anything.

So that's one failed example on your part (and still not an actual video link).

Try again.

You don't see how it changes anything?
The Brietbart video makes it seem like she refused to help someone get benefits they qualified for, due to skin color.
The unedited video makes clear that she never acted on that bad impulse, and that she worked on herself and learned not to feel that way anymore.
But you don't think there's a difference between the two stories.  Even FoxNews saw the difference and apologized.
But you, you're a special kind of person, I guess.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Breitbart video obviously misrepresents Shirley Sherrod's position by only showing the negative portion of her speech without including the moral. I am not condoning what they did. However, saying Breitbart was built on that video is akin to saying CNN was built on the video of the HS students at the March for Life. They both are valid sources of news that fell victim to the editor/reporter/company's own personal bias that resulted in a misrepresented position. Brietbart was sued and settled for that video. They couldn't repeat that mistake over and over without going bankrupt. All media companies make errors. All of them. To hold one to a higher standard out of political expedience shows a lack of integrity. 

My objection stems from frequently seeing Fox or Breitbart immediately dismissed without any concern for the content. I have no qualms with the source material being scrutinized BECAUSE it came from a right leaning source (questioning the validity of anonymous sources, disregarding sensationalist headlines, pointing out charged rhetoric etc), but I do have a problem with the instant dismissal of a source because of it's leaning. The narrative might be twisted. The opinion might be skewed, but the facts are mostly true. If you don't want to watch it or read it, that's your prerogative. To categorically dismiss it seems foolish. 

This is not unlike people getting labeled "far right" for having any conservative opinion. They are ad hominems that essentially attack the source of the information without having to consider it. I don't care if  you're on the left or right, consider what's being put in front of you.

I agree that the March for Life photo/video situation was bad, but it wasn't the same level as the Shirley sherrod situation.

The Catholic school boy was not a government official.  The photo of him seeming to smirk went viral due to lots of different people misinterpreting it, and the photo wasn't edited at all. Multiple witness shared multiple short photos and videos that each gave different impressions but failed to tell the full story.  Some of the more deceptive ones went viral, shared by people who had no way to find the full story at the time.

In the Shirley Sherrod situation, a man had access to a full video, then he deliberately edited that video, then promoted what he edited on his site.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Split hairs if you like.

---

Split hairs if you like.

I'm not splitting hairs.  What CNN and WaPo did was report something that was already viral because it was viral.  The thing that was viral was taken on different camera phones, and the timeline was unclear as the initial photos and videos were being shared.  CNN and WaPo did not hesitate to share the additional information and views of the incident as they became available.
What Brietbart did was try to create a story where none existed, and they knew that no story existed while they were doing it.  Fox News parroted Breitbart's lies but then walked them back when more information came to them.

I think Fox News and CNN are basically equivalent, in that both go for shock value, but both are also willing to have their stories criticized and are willing to correct themselves.

Breitbart has never been anything but lies and distortion with no correction.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I looked up the name and there was a vague description of how the rest of her speech contained the point that she learned from her mistake. I don't see how saying she realized later that she was wrong changes anything.

So that's one failed example on your part (and still not an actual video link).

Try again.

You don't see how it changes anything?
The Brietbart video makes it seem like she refused to help someone get benefits they qualified for, due to skin color.
The unedited video makes clear that she never acted on that bad impulse, and that she worked on herself and learned not to feel that way anymore.
But you don't think there's a difference between the two stories.  Even FoxNews saw the difference and apologized.
But you, you're a special kind of person, I guess.

She said she initially discriminated because of skin color. That she changed he mind later doesn't change that. If you think that minor difference absolves her of her racism then you have a strange and different viewpoint.

Or maybe you think the guy who admits to planning and almost raping a 12 year old is absolved of his pedophilia because he changed his mind later too?

In any case, what she did reeks of racism. Using this as an example of Breitbart changing the whole meaning by selectively editing is nonsense. And since you implied it happened more than once, I'll wait for another three examples.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Split hairs if you like.

I'm not splitting hairs.  What CNN and WaPo did was report something that was already viral because it was viral.  The thing that was viral was taken on different camera phones, and the timeline was unclear as the initial photos and videos were being shared.  CNN and WaPo did not hesitate to share the additional information and views of the incident as they became available.
What Brietbart did was try to create a story where none existed, and they knew that no story existed while they were doing it.  Fox News parroted Breitbart's lies but then walked them back when more information came to them.

I think Fox News and CNN are basically equivalent, in that both go for shock value, but both are also willing to have their stories criticized and are willing to correct themselves.

Breitbart has never been anything but lies and distortion with no correction.

This is distortion. Breitbart is clearly right leaning and has a narrative to match. It has made errors (intentional or not), but has paid the consequences. It is a publisher. It can be sued for libel. The site would not and could not exist if all it did was tell lies. I have no problem with attacking their narrative, but do have a problem with outright dismissal of any news that comes from that site. 

I don't care if you post 10 examples of them screwing up. It posts hundreds of stories a day. ALL of the publishing companies make mistakes. You want to attribute intent to the one while absolving the other, but you don't know anything. You only know what you feel. You can't actually know someone's intent. Breitbart could have known it was lying or it could have just jumped on a story that was 'too good to be true,' due to bias. This what I believe WaPo and CNN did, but I couldn't say for certainty. Yet, you would challenge me if I claimed they did it out of pure maliciousness and you should. Yet you do the same for Breitbart. 

The reality is that all of the major news outlets are pandering to their audience. I don't think any news channel is doing a good job of covering what's important, but in order to get a picture of what's going on, you have to read/watch all of them and entertain what is being said. It's is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it. We live in a world where dismissal has become fashionable.

---

I'm not splitting hairs.  What CNN and WaPo did was report something that was already viral because it was viral.  The thing that was viral was taken on different camera phones, and the timeline was unclear as the initial photos and videos were being shared.  CNN and WaPo did not hesitate to share the additional information and views of the incident as they became available.
What Brietbart did was try to create a story where none existed, and they knew that no story existed while they were doing it.  Fox News parroted Breitbart's lies but then walked them back when more information came to them.

I think Fox News and CNN are basically equivalent, in that both go for shock value, but both are also willing to have their stories criticized and are willing to correct themselves.

Breitbart has never been anything but lies and distortion with no correction.

This is distortion. Breitbart is clearly right leaning and has a narrative to match. It has made errors (intentional or not), but has paid the consequences. It is a publisher. It can be sued for libel. The site would not and could not exist if all it did was tell lies. I have no problem with attacking their narrative, but do have a problem with outright dismissal of any news that comes from that site. 

I don't care if you post 10 examples of them screwing up. It posts hundreds of stories a day. ALL of the publishing companies make mistakes. You want to attribute intent to the one while absolving the other, but you don't know anything. You only know what you feel. You can't actually know someone's intent. Breitbart could have known it was lying or it could have just jumped on a story that was 'too good to be true,' due to bias. This what I believe WaPo and CNN did, but I couldn't say for certainty. Yet, you would challenge me if I claimed they did it out of pure maliciousness and you should. Yet you do the same for Breitbart. 

The reality is that all of the major news outlets are pandering to their audience. I don't think any news channel is doing a good job of covering what's important, but in order to get a picture of what's going on, you have to read/watch all of them and entertain what is being said. It's is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it. We live in a world where dismissal has become fashionable.

People working for Breitbart edited the video.
If the video had already been edited before Breitbart got its hands on it, Breitbart would have explained that, and said where the edited video came from.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.