Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I agree


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I agree Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/7/2018 7:47:31 PM   
BoscoX


Posts: 11227
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: online
FR

Free Wiki edition of Wolff's admittedly fictional novel

_____________________________

Thought Criminal

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/7/2018 7:59:27 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Oh And for wikileaks fans, you can download the full book...they have made it available in a pdf...
apparently...
LMAO
ive already seen trumpers say its proof that they(wikileaks) are non partisan, dear gawd the stupidity on display is awesome.
sheesh its been a fun weekend.


post 78

NOT Wiki, as in Wikipedia, or rationalwiki, but WIKILEAKS
and you gave a link to the download???
snorts
for julian or for trump

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/7/2018 11:56:17 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
You missed the same point as bounty44. Congratulations.


I missed nothing, thank you.

Wolff is a gossip columnist who has a reputation for getting facts/details wrong and for lacking in certain areas of journalistic ethics, ie; he tells people they're "off the record" and then uses direct quotes or attributions, anyway.

Wolff, himself has also said that he attributed quotes to people that he didn't have notes (or recordings) of, he just kind of stated his interpretation of what they said, later. Of course, he stated those opinions through his unique prism of partisan hackery and lack of attention to detail.

Also, to quote one of our esteemed posters, here: "Bannon is not just toxic; he's nuclear waste"

This book could go down in the annals of real journalism as: "The greatest work of fiction since vows of fidelity were included in the French marriage service" (with apologies to Black Adder)





< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 1/8/2018 12:03:40 AM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 1:28:37 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		Those who want to question the credibility of Wolf's book are neglecting to note that almost all of the claims in the book have been independently corroborated in reporting by White House correspondents over the past year.

The major claims of the book are nothing new - they have all been reported consistently over the past year. Wolf's book adds colour detail and candour from named sources that fills out our understanding of events that already have been covered in innumerable reports from the White House press corps. But it adds very little that is new, not previously reported or unavailable to anyone who could read between the lines.
We have read repeatedly about the chaos of the Trump White House, the infighting, the factions, the back stabbings, the hirings and firings, the extraordinary lengths needed to 'manage' Trump etc etc. Anyone familiar with his tweets doesn't need to be told that Trump's mind is embarrassingly childish in many respects. No intelligent observer will have read his recent tweets and not wondered about Trump's mental equilibrium. So Wolf is not telling us anything new or outrageous, just adding depth and detail to what we already knew. We have heard it all before, consistently and from multiple independent sources over the past year. Wolf's book confirms what we already knew or suspected strongly.


Of course all of this adds up to massive corroboration of Wolf's major claims. And those who wish to question the credibility or accuracy of Wolf's book need to come up with some explanation as to why this massive corroboration has been a significant part of the public record consistently over the past year or so.


_____________________________



(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 1:48:59 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

More people bought 'Fire & Fury' on it's day of release Friday than attended Trump's inauguration.


Ooh what a gem!

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 2:23:38 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
I swear, by all I hold holy, I am sick to death of doing peoples' research for them.

quote:

Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent for the New York Times, ripped author Michael Wolff on Friday for "getting basic details wrong" about President Trump's campaign and administration in the newly published book "Fire and Fury."

"I believe parts of it and then there are other parts that are factually wrong," she said on CNN. "I can see several places in the book that are wrong. So for instance, he inaccurately describes a report in the New York Times. He inaccurately characterizes a couple of incidents that took place early on in the administration. He gets basic details wrong."

Haberman said Wolff's "style" is to create a broad narrative in a story, but gets many of the details wrong.

"He creates a narrative that is notionally true, conceptually true, the details are often wrong," she said.


Then, we have this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: HABERMAN (ellipses represent interruptions by other panelists) : No, where he -- where he violates journalistic protocol is he has a history of telling people they're off the record.

... And not just with this book. This is going back to the Murdoch too and other books.

... And then -- and then disregarding that.






< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 1/8/2018 2:41:36 AM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 4:39:06 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
ok... Since bounty44 won't answer this question...


there are more but for now, here's one answer---overwhelmingly I don't even read what you post.

anything else has been answered, yes by me (though you don't see it) and by bosco and Michael.



(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 4:45:41 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Soooo....

Wolff bashing in full force! Fox News blitz 24/7.

Any answers to these questions?

So if Wolff is a liar, as you say...

1. Why is Sam Nunberg saying that he was quoted 100% correctly in the book? Is he a liar too?
2. Why is Steve Bannon apologizing and trying to spin the comments mentioned in the book? (That he supposed never made in the first place because Wolff is a liar?)
3. Why has no one in the Trump administration claimed that they have been misquoted?




So, since I know I will never get an answer to these questions... I will sum up the logic of Michael (who missed NOTHING), bounty44, and my good friend, BoscoX.


1. Wolff is a liar.

2. Wolff, himself has also said that he attributed quotes to people that he didn't have notes (or recordings) of, he just kind of stated his interpretation of what they said, later. Of course, he stated those opinions through his unique prism of partisan hackery and lack of attention to detail. - Yet, according to Sam Nunberg, he was quoted 100% correctly. - Wow, that is quite an interpretation through his unique prism of partisan hackery! Maybe he got lucky?

3. Steve Bannon apologized for his delayed reaction to his comments, and claimed that they were not about Don Jr, but rather about Paul Manafort instead (e.g. "Don Jr. will crack like an egg".). Bannon's apology and spinning are about comments that he never made, because Wolff is a liar. Because Bannon has a history of referring to comments that he made, but in reality, he never made???

4. While there have been a few people on the periphery, no one in the Trump administration has said they have been misquoted. (And that is because they like being misquoted as saying disparaging things about the President?)

< Message edited by MasterJaguar01 -- 1/8/2018 5:41:51 AM >

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 4:47:03 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I swear, by all I hold holy, I am sick to death of doing peoples' research for them.

quote:

Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent for the New York Times, ripped author Michael Wolff on Friday for "getting basic details wrong" about President Trump's campaign and administration in the newly published book "Fire and Fury."

"I believe parts of it and then there are other parts that are factually wrong," she said on CNN. "I can see several places in the book that are wrong. So for instance, he inaccurately describes a report in the New York Times. He inaccurately characterizes a couple of incidents that took place early on in the administration. He gets basic details wrong."

Haberman said Wolff's "style" is to create a broad narrative in a story, but gets many of the details wrong.

"He creates a narrative that is notionally true, conceptually true, the details are often wrong," she said.


Then, we have this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: HABERMAN (ellipses represent interruptions by other panelists) : No, where he -- where he violates journalistic protocol is he has a history of telling people they're off the record.

... And not just with this book. This is going back to the Murdoch too and other books.

... And then -- and then disregarding that.








Ummmm Just so you know.... bounty44 already posted a reference to this.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 4:49:53 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline 		Withdrawn

< Message edited by MasterJaguar01 -- 1/8/2018 5:38:37 AM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 6:57:28 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 11227
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

So, since I know I will never get an answer to these questions... I will sum up the logic of Michael (who missed NOTHING), bounty44, and my good friend, BoscoX.



You can be a good sport

I've got to give you that.

_____________________________

Thought Criminal

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 8:15:48 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

So, since I know I will never get an answer to these questions... I will sum up the logic of Michael (who missed NOTHING) ...



If you wish to continue civil debate, don't speak for me. It's more than rude. I have not done so to you, I would appreciate the same courtesy.





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 9:56:40 AM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

So, since I know I will never get an answer to these questions... I will sum up the logic of Michael (who missed NOTHING) ...



If you wish to continue civil debate, don't speak for me. It's more than rude. I have not done so to you, I would appreciate the same courtesy.




Time for a lawsuit, I think.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 10:07:46 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

So, since I know I will never get an answer to these questions... I will sum up the logic of Michael (who missed NOTHING) ...



If you wish to continue civil debate, don't speak for me. It's more than rude. I have not done so to you, I would appreciate the same courtesy.







If you wish to continue civil debate, please do so. If not, that is your choice as well.

I stipulated an assertion that you made as fact. That is not even remotely the same as "speaking for you."

I am sorry that you find it "more than rude". That was not my intention. In fact, my intention was rather, the opposite, as I was taking your assertion at face value to be fact.

Engage in debate, or don't. Your choice. If you make assertions, others have the right to comment on them, agree or disagree with them, or do as I did, stipulate them as fact.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 10:09:58 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
If you wish to continue civil debate, please do so. If not, that is your choice as well.

I stipulated an assertion that you made as fact. That is not even remotely the same as "speaking for you."

I am sorry that you find it "more than rude". That was not my intention. In fact, my intention was rather, the opposite, as I was taking your assertion at face value to be fact.

Engage in debate, or don't. Your choice. If you make assertions, others have the right to comment on them, agree or disagree with them, or do as I did, stipulate them as fact.


Yes, you're right. There are a good number of people who believe speaking for others is not only good debate etiquette, but their right.

Thank you for reminding me.





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 10:21:41 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

So, since I know I will never get an answer to these questions... I will sum up the logic of Michael (who missed NOTHING) ...



If you wish to continue civil debate, don't speak for me. It's more than rude. I have not done so to you, I would appreciate the same courtesy.




Time for a lawsuit, I think.



Quite.



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to heavyblinker)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 10:31:29 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
If you wish to continue civil debate, please do so. If not, that is your choice as well.

I stipulated an assertion that you made as fact. That is not even remotely the same as "speaking for you."

I am sorry that you find it "more than rude". That was not my intention. In fact, my intention was rather, the opposite, as I was taking your assertion at face value to be fact.

Engage in debate, or don't. Your choice. If you make assertions, others have the right to comment on them, agree or disagree with them, or do as I did, stipulate them as fact.


Yes, you're right. There are a good number of people who believe speaking for others is not only good debate etiquette, but their right.

Thank you for reminding me.






Maybe so. However, I am not one of those people.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 10:35:06 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Yes, you're right. There are a good number of people who believe speaking for others is not only good debate etiquette, but their right.

Thank you for reminding me.



Maybe so. However, I am not one of those people.


Perhaps, from your point of view. I'm having a different experience.





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 10:44:30 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
In an effort to give a real answer to MJ's question (instead of his perception of my voice, ringing in his head), I will answer the question:

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
What exactly does this have to do with the dozens of on-the-record quotes he has on tape?


with a couple of small tidbits from "trusted" sources:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Business Insider article
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who the book said warned Trump that he may be under surveillance from British spies, issued a statement describing the claim as "categorically absurd" and "simply untrue."

Anna Wintour, the longtime Vogue editor, also dismissed the claim that she lobbied Trump to be his ambassador to the UK as "laughably preposterous."


So, two "on record" quotes, refuted by the people to whom they're attributed.





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I... - 1/8/2018 11:37:49 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		Considering the lies that come out of trumps whitehouse on almost a daily basis
Im hardly surprised, people are denying it, lol they got caught.

Regarding Blair...
oh....do you remember this??
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/white-house-will-not-be-repeat-claims-gchq-spied-trump-

I wonder who the "leaker" was


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I agree Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109