Yubaru: The "reigning" Emperor was not demoted.
Wasn't he, though? He was considered divine by right of his blood, a direct line from the Sun god. He didn't suddenly assume divinity when his father died and he ascended the throne. And his divinity was prewar as his father's was.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
AFP: The British star of west African origin is offering a fan and their guest a chance to share a meal with him at his undisclosed favourite restaurant. " ... And you know what? I’ll let you pound my yams. And for dessert, you can have whatever you want, and I mean whatever you want.”
What, a threesome? Is he bi?
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
Googled 'mainland china triad movies', first hit was a list of 10 movies that had 2.5 probably mainland or Taiwanese and 7.5 probably HK (Cantonese names). 2 were "No Man's Land" and "Lethal Hostage". The split China/HK movie was Drug War with Louis Koo.
"The Missing Gun" was OK, as far as I remember, it's been a long time since I saw it. But maybe it's just a crime movie, not mafia.
I thought I read somewhere that "Hero" was kind of targeted at USA in an attempt to get an Oscar, so it was reportedly a great disappointment for the director to lose out to Brokeback Mountain that year.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Strangerland: It's crazy how the Cold War essentially ended 30 or so years ago, yet suddenly is popping up again. There was nothing under Clinton, nothing under Bush, nothing under Obama, and suddenly it's a thing again. That's messed up.
What do you mean "nothing under Obama"? Is this something the media are touting? Like the "no scandals under Obama" thing?
One, Obama's still President.
Two, his and HRC's attempt at a "Russian Reset" failed a long time ago.
We've already got media and Valerie Jarrett declaring the Obama era scandal-free. I guess this no-Cold-War-under-Obama is another attempt at whitewashing his administration.
I guess never-Trumpers are preparing their ammo and jumped the gun by a few days. Don't worry, there are 7 days, 4 hours, 38 minutes, and 26 seconds until Obama's presidency ends. You'll have lots of fun throwing tomatoes after the 20th.
-6 ( +0 / -6 )
Facebook has its own problems ...
12 Jan 2017 - A new report from Bloomberg suggests that Facebook failed to meet its own “diversity” goals because of the role of white and Asian engineers in final hiring decisions. ... Two former recruiters identified “a group of about 20 to 30 highly-ranked engineering leaders,” of which about two at a time would make final hiring decisions on candidates considered in candidate review process meetings. Bloomberg reported that the engineering leaders were nearly exclusively white and Asian men. ...
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
yoshitsune: @stat Straw man. What makes Breitbart mendacious is its constant spreading of falsehoods and misrepresentations. ...
yoshitsune : Last week they posted a fake story about a group of Muslims setting fire to a church in Germany chanting Alluh Akbar. Completely made up; German police say no such thing happene in Germany last week. ...
Breitbart refuted the claims that the story was false: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/08/fake-news-fake-news-media-sow-division-with-dishonest-attack-on-breitbarts-allahu-akbar-church-fire-story/#disqus_thread - "Fake ‘Fake News’: Media Sow Division with Dishonest Attack on Breitbart’s ‘Allahu Akbar’ Church Fire Story" - 8 Jan 2017
yoshitsune: And the Obama birth certificate stuff ...
Googling "breitbart birthers" immediately shows Breitbart articles refuting that claim, here is the first hit: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/21/fake-news-new-york-times-joseph-goldstein-falsely-claims-breitbart-birther/
... and the "3 million illegal votes" BS, and Pizzagate.
Googled some more ... Breitbart reported on an organization's claim of "3 million illegal votes". They didn't pass judgment on it. Should they not cover that story? Are you saying they shouldn't cover news that doesn't agree with you?
Googling "site:breitbart.com pizzagate" shows 192 hits, on the first two pages of hits we see a couple of articles deriding pizzagate as 'bogus' and 'phony', etc., and other articles reporting the pizzagate gunman, but nothing promoting pizzagate as true.
So where are you getting your information about Breitbart from? Blogs and tweets from HuffPo writers? Shouldn't you search "site:breitbart.com" yourself before making these claims?
Because your answers were bunk. Trump told a direct lie that he personally saw thousands and thousands of people celebrating in New Jersey.
I am pretty sure you actually know what a lie is. Your statement that "Trump told a direct lie" is actually a lie itself, where his statements, as we've gone over and over in this thread, may not be a lie.
It's not irrelevant when Streep makes a speech at a nationally-covered event claiming she was shocked by an event that consisted of a few seconds of video recorded over a year ago.
Is she still "literally shaking"? Every few days hiding in her room weeping, reliving the terrible event of the day she viewed Trump's shocker on her telly? Are icons of the left non-criticizable?
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Yoshitsune: @stat: "it's the fake news outlets repeating related claims"
So stop linking to Breitbart, the prime example of a peddler in fake news and mendacity.
Ad hominem, no proof. They regularly fact-check the MSM, and the MSM fails. That you don't agree with what they say doesn't make them mendacious.
ts: It's an anti-fake-news narrative
yoshitsune: ...in which you defend Trump's spreading of fake news? Some "anti-fake news narrative" that is. Trump was spreading falsehoods about (quote) "thousands and thousands of people" celebrating in New Jersey. If your agenda is "anti-fake news", why do you defend rather than condemn Trump's mendacious spreading of falsehoods?
I repeatedly posted my answer to that. Why are you repeatedly asking the question?
ts: As for Streep, it's been over a year since the Trump's speech she's complaining about. Did she really nurse a grudge all that time, or was this the best talking point she (or she and the Dems) could scrape up to attempt to denigrate Trump with?
yoshitsune: She explicitly stated that she was talking about what was, for her, the most shocking moment of the year.
The event she's complaining about was more than a year ago, Nov. 2015. There was ANOTHER Golden Globes award ceremony in between then, and now. She's just dredging for incidents to complain about, and it's interesting that was the strongest one she found. I guess it plays well with her audience, though. They're pretty uncritical, when observing the right people. Still can't understand why she'd lead a standing ovation for Polanski.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Frederic Bastiat: The CNN twit was out of line. He should have been tossed out on his... ear. At a press conference, you wait until called upon to ask a question.
Has this happened in an Obama press conference? A reporter repeatedly interrupting, demanding an answer even though he wasn't called?
Interesting that the left is all "you have to answer everyone's questions" now.
They weren't like that when Hillary boycotted the entire news media by not holding any press conferences, or when Obama and his press secretary were boycotting Fox News.
Strangerland: When has fighting to achieve peace ever worked?
Yeah, World War II didn't work out at all.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
Yoshitsune: @stat, I must say I'm very impressed with how you've twisted the debate away from Streep and Trump to your anti-Muslim narrative,
It's Streep that's repeating a claim that makes discussion of the claim fair game under an article about her, and it's the fake news outlets repeating related claims that make exposure of those claims fair game as well. Probably lots of people had the same takeaway from the broadcasts immediately after 9/11, not just Trump, as they appear to have been broadcast around the same time.
So 'twisting the debate away' is your false decoration on it.
And as far as it being anti-Muslim, that's also your decoration on it. It's not an anti-Muslim narrative. It's an anti-fake-news narrative.
As for Streep, it's been over a year since the Trump's speech she's complaining about. Did she really nurse a grudge all that time, or was this the best talking point she (or she and the Dems) could scrape up to attempt to denigrate Trump with?
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
All of a sudden it's a problem when presidential candidates and President-Elects snub certain outlets.
google: obama boycott fox news
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63167-congressional-democrats-defend-white-houses-snub-of-fox-news - Congressional Democrats defend the White House’s snub of Fox News - 10/15/09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR2007040901115.html - Clinton, Obama to Skip Fox-Sponsored Debate - April 10, 2007
http://www.politico.com/story/2007/12/wallace-dems-are-fools-to-boycott-fox-007296 - Wallace: Dems are 'fools' to boycott Fox - 12/10/07
http://ijr.com/2015/05/319823-four-times-obama-fox-news/ 4 Video Clips That Show How the 'Transparent' Obama Administration Treats Fox News - 2 years ago
... If there's evidence of Fox being frozen out by Obama going back to 2009, and Chris Matthews is listing 10 times alone it's happened in the past five months, it's safe to say it's been a pretty regular policy by the White House—but you do the math.
I don't think the policy should be changed just because perennial press darling Donald Trump has been elected.
-5 ( +4 / -9 )
cleo: No one afaik is saying that no one at all celebrated 9/11.
Yes, they are. The "fact-checkers" are claiming the claims of celebrations in NJ were unfounded. But even NJ.com tracked down persons reporting such, after initially criticizing Trump. As far as "thousands", you could have read my posts more carefully before spending a few posts criticizing something I already explained. As far as Trump, it was right around 9/11, and the media were showing both the vids of celebrations in the Middle East and reporting on the NJ celebrations, in the same news flood (weren't all the stations broadcasting 9/11 news and only 9/11 news 24 hrs a day at that time)?
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Looks like doctors want their job back. They'll be cutting hair and removing warts next.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
cleo: I understand what conflate means.
Then why do you keep repeating "thousands and thousands" at me after I posted "Trump may have conflated thousands celebrating around the world with the reports of those celebrating in New Jersey. "?
ts: where do you get "multiple links to the same video" from?
cleo: Your YouTube link brings up the exact same video as your first breitbart link.
How does posting a youtube link, a link to a Breitbart article that, in addition to other text and links, includes the youtube link, and links to other videos and articles match your claim of "posting multiple links to the same video" in "(cleo): providing multiple links to the same video does not constitute 'more journalists supporting' anything."?
cleo: Face it, Trump was wrong to claim that he saw 'thousands and thousands' of people celebrating in New Jersey. Maybe he was mistaken, maybe he was confused, maybe he was conflating different accounts from elsewhere, maybe he was out-and-out lying. Bottom line, he was wrong. And anyone trying to prove him right, is also wrong.
Please show where I 'tried to prove him right' in saying 'thousands and thousands of people in New Jersey'. It'd be interesting if you could show ANYONE described by "(cleo) anyone trying to prove him right, is also wrong". There's billions of people in the world so I'm not saying you can't find one, but you probably are not thinking of a real person, just impressions of such from media and others trying to cast blame on Trump.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
I guess you don't understand 'conflate' either. I already discussed this.
Also, where do you get "multiple links to the same video" from? There are multiple videos and articles from different news outlets, from 2001, describing the celebrating. There are also multiple contemporary articles and videos showing the celebrating overseas. Thus the 'conflate'.
The problem with the media's intended narrative is there are also multiple links from 2015 showing news outlets trying to say there was NO celebrating in New Jersey, saying this so they could get a ding in on Trump. More outlets started digging and it turns out their contention that 'there were no reports of celebrations in NJ' was not true. Then some of them tried to say "well, the cops didn't file reports". Then others including cops said "Well, if there was no arrest, it wouldn't be unusual that no report was file." The outlets ignored the media reports at the time made by their own journalists in their own archives.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
TravelingSales: A failed Presidency comes to an ignominious end. And not a second too soon.
There's a web page for that!
Time left until Obama leaves office
8 days 5 hours 51 minutes 6 seconds
0 ( +2 / -2 )
mt: You wrote, "All the major powers bombed civilians."____So? Do you not see the fallacy of, "Everyone has done it, so I will do it too?"
It's not that. Why hamstring your war effort and eschew efficient tactics the enemy initiated and is engaging wholeheartedly in? The Axis practiced civilian bombing and total war and scorched earth policies. The Japanese bombed Chongqing, and specifically targeted residential areas, for five years before the US even entered the war.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Yoshitsune: Trump said he saw thousands and thousands of people celebrating in New Jersey. That he said that is a matter of record. None of your links demonstrate that he wasn't lying his behind off. "Some Jersey City Muslims" is a very different claim from "thousands and thousands".
I, in a previous post, and some author I linked to just above, said maybe he conflated the media images of the large celebrations in the Middle East with the smaller celebrations in New Jersey. Look up the meanings of 'conflate' and "lying his behind off" if you don't know what they mean.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Video: Meryl Streep Defends Child Rapist Roman Polanski "I am Really Sorry That He is In Jail"
I guess in Hollywood-land it's ok to drug and rape a 13-year-old, as long as you're an award-winning director who conforms to the party line.
Yoshitsune: What failed fact check, by the way? Trump did lie that he saw: "New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering"
Quoted out of context. Trump's full quote:
Failed fact check: "(WaPo): Trump says that he saw this with his own eyes on television and that it was well covered. But an extensive examination of news clips from that period turns up nothing. There were some reports of celebrations overseas, in Muslim countries, but nothing that we can find involving the Arab populations of New Jersey except for unconfirmed reports."
More journalists supporting the counter-check, publicly, below. Unlike WaPo, who even doubt their own contemporary story on the celebrations, these journos actually found the people reporting the incidents.
Trump 100% Vindicated: CBS Reports ‘Swarm’ On Rooftops Celebrating 9/11 - 2 Dec 2015
... In his lying fact check, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler writes, “There is absolutely no evidence of the celebration cited by Trump.” Except, of course, for all the proof listed here and a contemporaneous report in his own left-wing newspaper. A report, I should add, that Kessler did not include his initial fact check. ...
... While I stand by my original assertion that Trump was likely exaggerating domestic reports or conflating international reports when he made those claims, ... the interview that became the basis for so-called “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler’s piece at the leftwing Washington Post. While the article has since been heavily edited and updated since Kessler first wrote it, the four Pinocchios he assigned Trump still stand. ...
EXCLUSIVE: Some Jersey City Muslims did celebrate 9/11, cop and residents say - December 21, 2015
... Now, Former New York Police Department Commissioner Bernard Kerik has vindicated Trump in his claims, noting that there were many post-9/11 celebrations by NYC-area Muslims. ...
Jersey City 9/11 Celebration Report CBS
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
(youtube): archive japanese units in europe
Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat Team WWII Army Navy Screen Magazine
Go For Broke! (Restored, 1951) Japanese-Americans fight for their country in WW2 - An Academy-Award-nominated feature film ...
Preface to US WWII informational film: "Know Your Enemy - Japan" (it's more of a disclaimer than a preface, as the rest of the film is about Japanese in Japan, not in US military units):
In the last 100 years a small number of Japanese have come to the United States. Under our law their children, born in this country, are citizens. They have been educated in our schools and speak our language, and a great many of them share our love of freedom and our willingness to die for it.
In Europe a regiment formed of these Americans of Japanese descent, called Nisei, distinguished itself for gallantry against the Nazis. The story of these brave men who, however much they resemble our enemies in physical appearance, have proved their right to American citizenship on the battlefields of Europe, has been told in other informational films. Their story symbolizes the loyal contribution of Americans of Japanese descent in all theaters of war.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The Chinese War Against Japanese Aggression, China’s name for its war with Japan, will be now be 14 years long, from 1931 to 1945, ...
They should move it up, and historians in general should move the date to 1931. Having it start with the invasion of Poland is Eurocentric. It's not the rule they use for WWI, when they say it started with the first opening of hostilities between two countries.
Or they could go the other way, and not call them 'World Wars' until the major countries of the western hemisphere got into them. That'd be with Pearl Harbor 1941 for WWII, and for WWI the USA declaration of war vs. Germany in 1917.
dcog9065: The 1931 and 1937 wars could easily be seen in the same context, however it's arguable whether Japan had the same intentions in 1931 as they did in 1937 where they ramped up very violently and aimed for all out conquest
Don't know about that, probably it was just they couldn't take the whole country at once.
Manchukuo was 437,600 sq mi / 1.133 million sq km. It would fall between South Africa and Bolivia, no. 24 and 25 on the list of countries by land area. Japan isn't even close, at around 63 on the list.
Was watching a USA propaganda film last night from 1943 or so, apparently Japanese officials and academics were describing an invasion of the USA in the 20's and 30's, according to quotes in the movie.
"Know Your Enemy - Japan" - US Army Signal Corps
"If We Fight" - Admiral Shinsaku Hirata - March 15, 1930
The attack on Hawaii must be the first battle in the War of the Pacific Ocean. If one snatches away the enemy's pluck in the first battle, the American navy will certainly become wearied in the wind of panic. Therefore, attack!
"Arguments Against American Policies", Kawashima Seichiro, 1924
We can land in Puget Sound, the Columbia River, the vicinity of San Francisco, the vicinity of Los Angeles. But this is possible only after we have destroyed the American fleet.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
I wonder why Lynch couldn't bring herself to defy the Clintons?
-4 ( +2 / -6 )
theFu: Bring back the A-10!
Tell the Donald! Maybe he can make it happen!
0 ( +2 / -2 )
What do you think ...
A 20 percent trade imbalance with Japan doesn't seem like a lot. The imbalance with Mexico is even less, about 8 percent of the total trade.
He's got a point about factory jobs, though. Curious the Dems are so anxious to permit illegal immigrants in, who'll compete with the strata of society they (the Dems) claim the sole ability to represent.
... U.S. goods and private services trade with Japan totaled an estimated $290 billion in 2012 (latest data available). Exports totaled $116 billion; Imports totaled $173 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Japan was $57 billion in 2012. ...
... U.S. goods and services trade with Mexico totaled an estimated $583.6 billion in 2015. Exports were $267.2 billion; imports were $316.4 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico was -$49.2 billion in 2015. ...
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
theFu: @turbotsat - ... My issue was with the attempt during the President Clinton years of appointing her to do anything in the government when her husband was in power. Vaguely remember "two for the price of one" being mentioned at the time. We elected 1 of those people. The other was to be 1st Lady, which is generally a role that American like, even if we dislike the President's work/politics.
Nobody in the Trump family should have any appointments or directly advise Mr. Trump in an official capacity. ...
The problem was Hillary was unexperienced, incompetent, and has some extremely invalidating character flaws, such as viciousness and vindictiveness. Every time she steps up to bat she screws up.
Jared is just being picked to be an advisor to his father-in-law. Obviously, as a billionaire, he doesn't need the salary, so one of the usual objections to nepotism doesn't apply at all. He's already shown himself to be a competent person.
That wasn't the case with Hillary and she kept proving why she shouldn't have been considered.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
LFRAgain: How dare you sit there and try to pretend it never happened or recharacterize the incident as something it very clearly was not.
So, you didn't read the links I posted, to the article or to the youtube vids countering those claims.
Here's another one, from Piers Morgan:
Sorry, Meryl but that hypocritical anti-Trump rant was easily the worst performance of your career (apart from that time you gave a child rapist a standing ovation) - 9 January 2017
... Second, Trump has always furiously denied – and has again today on Twitter - he was mocking the reporter’s disability and a Conservative website produced video evidence of numerous other instances where he made the exact same gesture to fully able-bodied people when attacking them. (See here and decide for yourself) ...
The link "See here" points to:
So did Trump REALLY mock reporter's disability? Videos suggest that The Donald has a default impression for EVERYONE he mimics - 15 September 2016
Donald Trump was accused in November last year of mocking a disabled reporter - but videos of his other speeches suggest that he performs the same impression for whoever he mocks. ...
A video from October 2015 has Trump ...
Another clip, taken at the same rally Trump mocked Kovaleski, ...
And in a clip from February this year, Trump mocks Ted Cruz ...
The site also hosted an even earlier clip, from a 2005 Larry King interview, ...
-7 ( +0 / -7 )
There's been an active shift in the law away from moral codes.
In representative democracies creation of laws is delegated to legislators.
The alternative is to require the active involvement of every citizen in the creation of laws.
The delegation is not voluntary on the part of all citizens but that's the status quo.
How do we avoid relativism?
What is wrong with relativism?
In the old model, when most people never strayed from a few miles around their village, they didn't need to adjust to the morals of different cultures. Those who did travel did have to make such adjustments, or bring along enough force to force their own adjustments on remote cultures.
Part of modern living is to adjust to different moral beliefs held by our neighbors in a multicultural society.
In fact, the current environment in the USA gives a lot of leeway here. PDA laws dropped, if not as much as some would like. (SF apparently passed an anti-nudity law in 2012, allowing public nudity without threat of arrest only to holders of parade permits allowing such nudity, so my paragraph on that is out of date.) Private secular and religious schools and home schooling are allowed. Non-official polygamy is allowed. If church memberships find themselves too divided on issues, they're allowed to split on their own. There's probably lots of examples you can think of.
If you're talking about issues like forcing bakeries to make gay cakes, we're back to law.
Law is backed up by force. Laws are delegated by legislators. They negotiate and decide the laws. People get involved in this process as much their inclination, ambition, luck, and success allow them. If a point of contention is important enough that it needs addressing and resolution, then it might be, via the legislatures and courts. If in time it's reduced, then it is, by evolving sentiment.
People individually create and consume their own moralities on a micro basis. Groups combine these on a macro basis. Individuals and groups have the alternative to withdraw if the moral environment they are forced to live in by happenstance is not to their liking. This is what the Unabomber did as an individual and the Mennonites in Mexico did as a group.
They can also attempt to negotiate their stance, as lobbyists for various groups attempt. They can also attempt to force their stance, as the Crusaders and jihadists did.
The moral environment may not be perfect, especially to some people, but it's the status quo that evolved and was negotiated.
.not how they go about determining what should be made law.
Strong points of contention are negotiated (with and by the three branches of govt), weaker points that there's less motive and less energy available to contest are ignored and people adapt on their own. The USA system provides various levels and venues of negotiation, terminating in the Supreme Court.
How does an individual decide what is right or wrong?
Decide as they grow, what to take from the parental environment, the educational environment, their self-learning process, their peers. Even if no libraries are involved, this happens.
Feeling? If so, then why should anyone's feelings be made normative? Are decisions on right and wrong made arbitrarily?
On specific points, someone had enough motivational energy and devoted enough procedural energy to reach this point. If it was contested, someone lost, and someone won. Someone may have cheated, in the other side's view. If so, this is another point to be contested, by the same process. It doesn't mean they come out at the very final end with everyone agreeing on the outcome and that no one's been cheated or forced.
Majority? I have already provided an argument as to why this fails.
(mt9334, a previous post, I guess this is what you meant by 'provided', above): For then how do we decide what laws should be enacted? How do Law makers decide what laws to promulgate? Please, do not simply respond with, for instance, "The law makers decide which laws to pass by what their constituency demands. ", for then the question is back to how does the constituency decide what laws to pass.
It's not really much of a question. The system evolved and is backed by force. When I said 'delegated by the people' it was an overstatement, I knew it. Governments are in business for themselves, the input of the public (in modern democracies) is mostly limited to shaking them up at election time. Everyone directly participating or being allowed to vote on every decision is not feasible. Increasing the level of participation by decreasing the scope and increasing the number of things that people vote on is possible, but not to the extent that everyone gets input on every decision.
If you're specifically complaining about gay cakes, abortions funded by Catholic healthcare, etc., there's no real recourse except conformance in varying levels, or changing the tide at the ballot box, or emigration. Or others I haven't thought of. Discussing how unfair it is you have to conform to others' disagreeable moral codes is probably an analgesic, not a recourse :).
I keep feeling reminded of the NorCal / S. Oregon Yurok (?) tribes' response to visiting strangers. They'd kill them on sight. Who now can say it was wrong? Their way of life is erased. Their descendants follow the ways of the invaders. Their policy wasn't successful but it was correct and moral for the day, evidently even the invaders held somewhat similar beliefs.
Bye for now :).
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
SuperLib: They know he mocked a disabled person ..
In the absence of any attempt by you to support the claim that he did, or to counter the evidence showing he didn't and that WaPo tried to frame him, I guess you're relying on appeal to the authority of WaPo, who have both the inclination to try to blame Trump for whatever they can and, in this case, the much stronger motive to distract the public from their own failed attempt at fact-checking.
-9 ( +1 / -10 )
Yoshitsune: Haha, sure. Keep digging, Turbo.
Trump may have conflated thousands celebrating around the world with the reports of those celebrating in New Jersey.
But WaPo's fact checker said NO celebrating in New Jersey. He didn't contend there weren't 'thousands', his fact check said he looked and they could find NO reports. He apparently didn't bother to read the WaPo's own archives. Major burn for the WaPo when they get burned trying to burn Trump with four Pinocchios!
When their fact-check reporter (not the disabled reporter) tried to dispute a fact-the-fact-check-checker who busted him on twitter, the fact-check-checker kept winning and the reporter stopped posting:
Washington Post’s Fact Checker Doesn’t Read the Washington Post [Updated][Updated Again] - November 22, 2015 ...
... the Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler. He addressed Trump’s claim here, and, calling it “outrageous,” awarded it four Pinocchios. ...
(WaPo): Trump says that he saw this with his own eyes on television and that it was well covered. But an extensive examination of news clips from that period turns up nothing. There were some reports of celebrations overseas, in Muslim countries, but nothing that we can find involving the Arab populations of New Jersey.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )