Yogi Bear said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Sonofoski said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Okay then...House Judiciary Comm will hold a vote on charging William Barr with contempt of Congress. I guess this confirms Billy Barr's cover-up efforts.

"The Attorney General's failure to comply with our subpoena, after extensive accommodation efforts, leaves us no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings in order to enforce the subpoena and access the full, unredacted report," Nadler said.

This whole issue is political grandstanding by idiot Nadler. The whole unredacted report cannot be released to Congress becasue it contains Grand Jury testimony and it's release is againist the law.

And just what is Barr covering up? You do know that both the Special Counsel and the AG lawyers went over the entire report and, collectively, agreed on the redactions.

---

---

Still learning the quote function...okay.

To answer your question: THE FULL UN-REDACTED MUELLER REPORT IS WHAT BILLY BARR IS COVERING UP.

DESPITE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT AN AGREEMENT ON REDCATION, MUELLER SENT BARR A LETTER AFTER BARR RELEASED HIS INFAMOUS LETTER COVERING UP FOR TRUMP. YOU CAN READ IT HERE:

Read: Letter from special counsel Robert Mueller to Attorney General William Barr

DID YOU MISS THIS PART OR JUST FAILED TO RECALL MUELLER WROTE THIS LETTER?

REGARDLESS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THE FULL UNREDACTED REPORT...BECAUSE WE PAID FOR IT.

---

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/a-letter-to-william-barr.php

---

Powerlineblog. That's where I go to get my important news and analysis.

---

I know....You get it from Rachel M. Maybe the Huff Post.

kelly09 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Sonofoski said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Okay then...House Judiciary Comm will hold a vote on charging William Barr with contempt of Congress. I guess this confirms Billy Barr's cover-up efforts.

"The Attorney General's failure to comply with our subpoena, after extensive accommodation efforts, leaves us no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings in order to enforce the subpoena and access the full, unredacted report," Nadler said.

This whole issue is political grandstanding by idiot Nadler. The whole unredacted report cannot be released to Congress becasue it contains Grand Jury testimony and it's release is againist the law.

And just what is Barr covering up? You do know that both the Special Counsel and the AG lawyers went over the entire report and, collectively, agreed on the redactions.

---

---

Still learning the quote function...okay.

To answer your question: THE FULL UN-REDACTED MUELLER REPORT IS WHAT BILLY BARR IS COVERING UP.

DESPITE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT AN AGREEMENT ON REDCATION, MUELLER SENT BARR A LETTER AFTER BARR RELEASED HIS INFAMOUS LETTER COVERING UP FOR TRUMP. YOU CAN READ IT HERE:

Read: Letter from special counsel Robert Mueller to Attorney General William Barr

DID YOU MISS THIS PART OR JUST FAILED TO RECALL MUELLER WROTE THIS LETTER?

REGARDLESS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THE FULL UNREDACTED REPORT...BECAUSE WE PAID FOR IT.

---

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/a-letter-to-william-barr.php

---

Powerlineblog. That's where I go to get my important news and analysis.

---

I know....You get it from Rachel M. Maybe the Huff Post.

---

BTW.. Did you read the piece? You are too smart for Powerline?

AunBear89 said:

---

They don't need it - they're smart enough to do it on their own. Only moron, in-bred, science and technology adverse RWNJs seem to need the help.

---

You sound like a temperate fellow who handles disagreements well.

kelly09 said:

---

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/a-letter-to-william-barr.

---

Doing some due diligence, looked up Powerline. It gets an EXTREME RIGHT rating aka RWNJs. So not going to read that garbage. Try using a reliable source with at least some credibility.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/power-line/

Quote:

---

Analysis / Bias
In review, Power Line often vigorously criticizes Democrats and liberals for dishonesty, lack of morals, bad judgment and disloyalty to the United States. Headlines and articles often contain strongly loaded language that favors the right such as this: THE DEMS' APOCALYPSE PRIMARY and END OF THE MUELLER AFFAIR. Both of these stories are properly sourced. When it comes to science, Power Line takes a denialists view on climate change, with article such as this: CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM IS FOUNDED ON DISHONESTY. This article is sourced to the No Trick Zone, which is an climate science denial website. On the side bar of the website, Power Line lists their favorite sources, which consists of all right leaning sources and several we have rated as questionable such as the American Thinker and Michelle Malkin. In general, all stories favor the right and denigrate the left.

Overall, we rate Power Line strongly right biased based on story selection that always favors the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources that have failed numerous fact checks, as well as rejecting the consensus of science when it comes to climate change. (D. Van Zandt 10/30/2016) Updated (3/23/2019)

---

I know Rachel has hit a few bumps in the road, but you can do worse than getting information from a Rhodes Scholar. Scores of the elderly and mentally impaired youth rely on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Matt Drudge for their information. Regardless of how they candy coat it in their bios, Rush and Sean were flunk outs and Drudge barely cleared high school. All three, however, are entrepreneurs in that they knew they could make millions peddling hog slop to millions of ignoramuses starving to lap it up.

Try grappling with the facts (if any) and destroy the analysis as needed. Otherwise, you get nowhere. It's just people sharing posts that nobody takes seriously because "appeal to authority" (i.e. a source with an ideological agenda similar to mine)

Take Vox. Hard-hard left with incendiary titles and some really bad ideological agenda pushing and misinformation (not rare, I know), but they also have a lot of GREAT, well written pieces with some good reporting. So even when the analysis is loaded and they're clearly pushing an agenda (and sometimes poorly) they have many pieces that are useful and informative.

GBear4Life said:

---

Try grappling with the facts (if any) and destroy the analysis as needed. Otherwise, you get nowhere. It's just people sharing posts that nobody takes seriously because "appeal to authority" (i.e. a source with an ideological agenda similar to mine)

Take Vox. Hard-hard left with incendiary titles and some really bad ideological agenda pushing and misinformation (not rare, I know), but they also have a lot of GREAT, well written pieces with some good reporting. So even when the analysis is loaded and they're clearly pushing an agenda (and sometimes poorly) they have many pieces that are useful and informative.

---

You tell us to try grappling with facts then you call Vox hard-hard left with incendiary titles. However the graph you've included has Vox as Skews Left but not the further left Hyper Partisan Left or Most Extreme Left. Maybe you should grapple with your graph a bit more.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Try grappling with the facts (if any) and destroy the analysis as needed. Otherwise, you get nowhere. It's just people sharing posts that nobody takes seriously because "appeal to authority" (i.e. a source with an ideological agenda similar to mine)

Take Vox. Hard-hard left with incendiary titles and some really bad ideological agenda pushing and misinformation (not rare, I know), but they also have a lot of GREAT, well written pieces with some good reporting. So even when the analysis is loaded and they're clearly pushing an agenda (and sometimes poorly) they have many pieces that are useful and informative.

---

You tell us to try grappling with facts then you call Vox hard-hard left with incendiary titles. However the graph you've included has Vox as Skews Left but not the further left Hyper Partisan Left or Most Extreme Left. Maybe you should grapple with your graph a bit more.

---

Moreover, it seems to me this graph basically proves that the hard-line extremists have way more purchase on the right than on the left. If you want to talk about reach and influence, then Fox News vs. Daily Kos is no contest.

bearister said:

---

I know Rachel has hit a few bumps in the road, but you can do worse than getting information from a Rhodes Scholar. Scores of the elderly and mentally impaired youth rely on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Matt Drudge for their information. Regardless of how they candy coat it in their bios, Rush and Sean were flunk outs and Drudge barely cleared high school. All three, however, are entrepreneurs in that they knew they could make millions peddling hog slop to millions of ignoramuses starving to lap it up.

---

I really don't know anyone about him, but back in the late 90's and early 2000's when I was on a corporate trading desk with a screen of tickers and indexes in my face flashing at every second, if there was any sort of sudden up/down jump, we'd all ask, "does Drudgereport mention anything?"

Often, it would talk about a bomb threat or something. Once cleared up, the market would normalize back.

So, I view him as a news outlet, funny to hear him referred to as right wing political commenter now.

You know, how easy to make a few bucks off that. Release a news item just after taking a position in futures, they'd never track you. It surely happens ALL THE TIME!

Speaking of which, that exact scenario was reported about trump in the nytimes today. And dontcha know, it's ILLEGAL.

kelly09 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Sonofoski said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Okay then...House Judiciary Comm will hold a vote on charging William Barr with contempt of Congress. I guess this confirms Billy Barr's cover-up efforts.

"The Attorney General's failure to comply with our subpoena, after extensive accommodation efforts, leaves us no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings in order to enforce the subpoena and access the full, unredacted report," Nadler said.

This whole issue is political grandstanding by idiot Nadler. The whole unredacted report cannot be released to Congress becasue it contains Grand Jury testimony and it's release is againist the law.

And just what is Barr covering up? You do know that both the Special Counsel and the AG lawyers went over the entire report and, collectively, agreed on the redactions.

---

---

Still learning the quote function...okay.

To answer your question: THE FULL UN-REDACTED MUELLER REPORT IS WHAT BILLY BARR IS COVERING UP.

DESPITE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT AN AGREEMENT ON REDCATION, MUELLER SENT BARR A LETTER AFTER BARR RELEASED HIS INFAMOUS LETTER COVERING UP FOR TRUMP. YOU CAN READ IT HERE:

Read: Letter from special counsel Robert Mueller to Attorney General William Barr

DID YOU MISS THIS PART OR JUST FAILED TO RECALL MUELLER WROTE THIS LETTER?

REGARDLESS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THE FULL UNREDACTED REPORT...BECAUSE WE PAID FOR IT.

---

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/a-letter-to-william-barr.php

---

Powerlineblog. That's where I go to get my important news and analysis.

---

I know....You get it from Rachel M. Maybe the Huff Post.

---

BTW.. Did you read the piece? You are too smart for Powerline?

---

Yes, I am. But then, stupid people don't really understand how smart people see the world.

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

I know Rachel has hit a few bumps in the road, but you can do worse than getting information from a Rhodes Scholar. Scores of the elderly and mentally impaired youth rely on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Matt Drudge for their information. Regardless of how they candy coat it in their bios, Rush and Sean were flunk outs and Drudge barely cleared high school. All three, however, are entrepreneurs in that they knew they could make millions peddling hog slop to millions of ignoramuses starving to lap it up.

---

I really don't know anyone about him, but back in the late 90's and early 2000's when I was on a corporate trading desk with a screen of tickers and indexes in my face flashing at every second, if there was any sort of sudden up/down jump, we'd all ask, "does Drudgereport mention anything?"

Often, it would talk about a bomb threat or something. Once cleared up, the market would normalize back.

So, I view him as a news outlet, funny to hear him referred to as right wing political commenter now.

You know, how easy to make a few bucks off that. Release a news item just after taking a position in futures, they'd never track you. It surely happens ALL THE TIME!

Speaking of which, that exact scenario was reported about trump in the nytimes today. And dontcha know, it's ILLEGAL.

---

This really shows how effective right wing propaganda is at inserting itself into the mainstream consciousness. Drudgereport has always been right wing propaganda. Andrew Breitbart was the #2 at Drudgereport during the entire period you are talking about. The whole site was based on tips from right wing insiders mixed in with straight news aggregation. It's amazing to me that people don't see that just because a site mentions that Prince Harry had a baby doesn't mean that the next mention isn't an anonymous tip from Newt Gingrich's aide trying to put spin on something about Bill Clinton.

A good current example of this is zerohedge. That site does a lot of interesting analysis about the markets (albeit almost always bearish). Then it peppers in items straight from Putin's heart (Europe's institutions are out to kill you). People don't see it. Wall Streeters love the site. They don't realize they are reading Putin's press releases daily.

sycasey said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Try grappling with the facts (if any) and destroy the analysis as needed. Otherwise, you get nowhere. It's just people sharing posts that nobody takes seriously because "appeal to authority" (i.e. a source with an ideological agenda similar to mine)

Take Vox. Hard-hard left with incendiary titles and some really bad ideological agenda pushing and misinformation (not rare, I know), but they also have a lot of GREAT, well written pieces with some good reporting. So even when the analysis is loaded and they're clearly pushing an agenda (and sometimes poorly) they have many pieces that are useful and informative.

---

You tell us to try grappling with facts then you call Vox hard-hard left with incendiary titles. However the graph you've included has Vox as Skews Left but not the further left Hyper Partisan Left or Most Extreme Left. Maybe you should grapple with your graph a bit more.

---

Moreover, it seems to me this graph basically proves that the hard-line extremists have way more purchase on the right than on the left. If you want to talk about reach and influence, then Fox News vs. Daily Kos is no contest.

---

Not to mention, Dailykos is primarily user-driven content while Fox News is a major corporation that purports to be a news outlet. Fox's "purpose" is a lie, while Dailykos is basically a group of like-minded folks sharing information and thoughts.

What is the equivalent of dailykos on the right? You know, right wingers sharing thoughts and ideas on a front page of a blog instead of top down information being blogged out?

Trump claims executive privilege over the Mueller report...and everything else.

It may seem uncouth to someone just starting to follow this forum for the first time during this presidency, but IMO an appropriate response to anyone who conveys support for Deranged Donald's continued efforts to thwart the legitimate search for truth on various fronts is "FU and please STFU."

Fox News is not more extreme to the right than MSNBC or CNN are to the left. I know Yogi (who is so effing smart) and Vanessa Otero think so.but, then again, who the hell are they?

kelly09 said:

---

Fox News is not more extreme to the right than MSNBC or CNN are to the left. I know Yogi (who is so effing smart) and Vanessa Otero think so.but, then again, who the hell are they?

---

What's the equivalent of the Seth Rich story on MSNBC or CNN?

kelly09 said:

---

Fox News is not more extreme to the right than MSNBC or CNN are to the left. I know Yogi (who is so effing smart) and Vanessa Otero think so.but, then again, who the hell are they?

---

Pause on left vs. right for the moment and focus on stupid versus intelligent. Fox, aside from the news division, is a bunch of fuucking idiots. The talking heads at Fox that are the President's Intelligentsia are some stupid ass motherfuuckers, who, to their credit, don't give a ****. This is not an argument: if Fox were a person applying for college the only ones she would get accepted to are Trump University and Oral Roberts. Definitely would get their ass rejected from Cal.

You are crazy if you don't think Fox News gets a full ride to Liberty University.

Quote:

---

This is not an argument: if Fox were a person applying for college the only ones she would get accepted to are Trump University and Oral Roberts. Definitely would get their ass rejected from Cal.

---

Okay so you conservatives want real discourse. Fine...but be ready to put up or STFU. Let's start with this.

The Making of the Fox News White House

Quote:

---

Fox News has always been partisan. But has it become propaganda?

---

Pretend this is a seminar or small upper division class at Cal. Read, review, discuss. If you guys want to submit a counter article, great...but it must be a reputable source. Here's the bias rating for The New Yorker. It gets a left rating but it gets a HIGH factual rating and it's been published since 1925.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-yorker/

Seriously the guy who wrote the infamous Dubya morally flexible torture memo is saying that?

That's not a good sign for Deranged Donnie.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Fox News is not more extreme to the right than MSNBC or CNN are to the left. I know Yogi (who is so effing smart) and Vanessa Otero think so.but, then again, who the hell are they?

---

Pause on left vs. right for the moment and focus on stupid versus intelligent. Fox, aside from the news division, is a bunch of fuucking idiots. The talking heads at Fox that are the President's Intelligentsia are some stupid ass motherfuuckers, who, to their credit, don't give a ****. This is not an argument: if Fox were a person applying for college the only ones she would get accepted to are Trump University and Oral Roberts. Definitely would get their ass rejected from Cal.

---

Uh... Greg Gutfeld?

does Gutfeld strike you as an intelligent person? Serious question.

kelly09 said:

---

Uh... Greg Gutfeld?

---

If you're watching the same shows that have, for this president, replaced reading a newspaper or any written information longer than a series of tweets and consider those talking heads to be, on average, intelligent enough and worthy of being admitted to our alma mater (who gives AF if one random guy went to Cal), then please dig up your diploma and dump it in the trash today.

kelly09 said:

---

Fox News is not more extreme to the right than MSNBC or CNN are to the left.

---

Not if you're already a right-winger.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

does Gutfeld strike you as an intelligent person? Serious question.

---

Uh....yeah.

Trump's Opposition to Mueller Testimony Poses a Test for Barr

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/politics/trump-barr-mueller-testimony.amp.html

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

You tell us to try grappling with facts then you call Vox hard-hard left with incendiary titles. However the graph you've included has Vox as Skews Left but not the further left Hyper Partisan Left or Most Extreme Left. Maybe you should grapple with your graph a bit more.

---

Um, maybe you should go read Vox. Their graph placement is passable because, as I noted, they do have GREAT pieces independent of ideology, even though Vox is very up front about its editorial motives.

The abortion talk must have triggered you.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Pause on left vs. right for the moment and focus on stupid versus intelligent. Fox, aside from the news division, is a bunch of fuucking idiots. The talking heads at Fox that are the President's Intelligentsia are some stupid ass motherfuuckers, who, to their credit, don't give a ****. This is not an argument: if Fox were a person applying for college the only ones she would get accepted to are Trump University and Oral Roberts. Definitely would get their ass rejected from Cal.

---

Your rants (errrrr moral posturing, self aggrandizing) are nonsensical. Schools don't mine your political views in admissions.

If Cal did an audit of this board, they'd revoke the degrees of 90% of its users based on that logic.

kelly09 said:

---

Fox News is not more extreme to the right than MSNBC or CNN are to the left. I know Yogi (who is so effing smart) and Vanessa Otero think so.but, then again, who the hell are they?

---

I heard someone once summarize it as follows:
MSNBC filters the facts through a Progressive filter; CNN the same, but to a lesser extent; and Fox News just flat out makes sh@t up.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

I actually think a case could be made against Fox News for Elder Abuse. When my father in law was in his 90's and moved into an assisted living facility, my wife had to beg the staff not to let him watch Fox News because the fear and hate mongering disseminated on that network got him so worked up she was afraid he would have a stroke.

I do respect Chris Wallace because he does seem to break the balls of both sides. I also thought he was the fairest debate moderator. I have a hard time believing that he is very well thought of by the mom and pop Fox News base.

dajo9 said:

---

Not to mention, Dailykos is primarily user-driven content while Fox News is a major corporation that purports to be a news outlet. Fox's "purpose" is a lie, while Dailykos is basically a group of like-minded folks sharing information and thoughts.

What is the equivalent of dailykos on the right? You know, right wingers sharing thoughts and ideas on a front page of a blog instead of top down information being blogged out?

---

So to recap...

When conservatives convey news and information, it's "right-wing bias propaganda".

When liberals do it, it's just "a group of like-minded folks sharing information and thoughts"

LMFAO

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Not to mention, Dailykos is primarily user-driven content while Fox News is a major corporation that purports to be a news outlet. Fox's "purpose" is a lie, while Dailykos is basically a group of like-minded folks sharing information and thoughts.

What is the equivalent of dailykos on the right? You know, right wingers sharing thoughts and ideas on a front page of a blog instead of top down information being blogged out?

---

So to recap...

When conservatives convey news and information, it's "right-wing bias propaganda".

When liberals do it, it's just "a group of like-minded folks sharing information and thoughts"

LMFAO

---

Your reading comprehension failed you on this one

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

It may seem uncouth to someone just starting to follow this forum for the first time during this presidency, but IMO an appropriate response to anyone who conveys support for Deranged Donald's continued efforts to thwart the legitimate search for truth on various fronts is "FU and please STFU."

---

You opinion is dogsh*t, since it states it necessary to resort to petulant hostility at disagreement because

A) you operate in an echo chamber; you are only receptive to that which confirms your bias

B) you are so triggered by certain differences (irony) that you lash out (evidence: all your OPs)

I'll bet $100 you have recently 1) criticized *somebody* for incivility (I think he's rich) and 2) criticized *others* for lack of tolerance of differences. You probably have your pom poms out for trivial signals of "diversity" but you meltdown over a legitimate diversity of perspectives.

"Agree with my disdain for this president or 'FU and please STFU' "

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Not to mention, Dailykos is primarily user-driven content while Fox News is a major corporation that purports to be a news outlet. Fox's "purpose" is a lie, while Dailykos is basically a group of like-minded folks sharing information and thoughts.

What is the equivalent of dailykos on the right? You know, right wingers sharing thoughts and ideas on a front page of a blog instead of top down information being blogged out?

---

So to recap...

When conservatives convey news and information, it's "right-wing bias propaganda".

When liberals do it, it's just "a group of like-minded folks sharing information and thoughts"

LMFAO

---

Dude, this commentary is based on the diagram YOU posted. I think your issue is with that.

Nadler: "Now is the time of testing whether we can keep our republic, or whether this republic is destined to change into a different, more tyrannical form of government ... We must resist this."