Thanks for posting that last link though. In one of the images you can see that the following article comes up high on a Google search for this madman:
Featuring the following quote He’s also big-hearted, unguarded and foul mouthed: every sentence, it seems, is peppered with “prick”, “bastard”, “fuck”, “bullshit” or “dickhead”.
I'll keep my lefty obscenities right where they fucking belong, thanks.
Very selective quoting there my friend. You could have chosen this instead:
"“Michael had sniffed the seriousness of this story out before anyone had,” said The Australian‘s Hedley Thomas, who has led his paper’s coverage of the AWU saga. “Michael has done a lot of the work — the digging, interviewing and fact-testing — that the Canberra press gallery and many journalists failed to do.
“I’m told that many in the Labor caucus are refreshing their browsers on Smith’s blog every day, and that the PM’s staff are even more avid visitors to michaelsmithnews.com.”
Smith, who declines to call himself a journalist, was a latecomer to the media. A former police constable, army corporal, Telstra executive and symphony orchestra managing director, he got his break at another Fairfax-owned station, Brisbane’s 4BC, in 2007. While critics such as Mark Latham dismiss him as a reactionary blowhard, it was he who cracked the Craig Thomson scandal open last year in an interview with the MP.
According to Thomas, Smith is “well-intentioned”, “forensic” and “highly intelligent”. He’s also big-hearted"
That sums him up very well. Obscenities IMO should be confined to conversations between like minded individuals, not used freely on public forums such as this and I have made my feelings known to admin about this.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Trump is done. There's no need to be so worried about it.
Women will turn out in their droves to keep him out of the white house. Signed his own death warrant with the comments about abortion and his victims last night.
Following on from @SDAddick , if this vast left wing media conspiracy is in place, how is it
A. The presidency continually alternates between parties B. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate C. The Republicans have a majority in the House D. The Republicans hold 30 of 50 state governor positions
Obviously those coordinating this have organizational skills only matched by the SMT at The Valley
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either!
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
So hard to ascertain truth from parody these days.
There is no truth with this idiot which is harsh because it gives idiots a bad name. From this we can ascertain that he is about as two faced as they come. Everything he has said in the past cannot be taken at face value because he will say one thing to one person and another thing to another. And will do it on a public stage for all the world to see. I hope he gets totally crushed in the election.
He's a cock of the highest order, end of! Americans should be ashamed of themselves that they have allowed it to be him to challenge lightweight Hillary! Only in the USA though! As great as the place is, it's as daft as a member of the CAFC SMT! James O'Brien on LBC has totally nailed Trump - bang on fella.
Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower?
So if you don't object to a woman stroking your pectorals it's OK for her to go ahead and grab your cock? I think you need to cut back on the late night posting, as it seems to be seriously impairing your logic, empathy and other cognitive functioning.
So hard to ascertain truth from parody these days.
There is no truth with this idiot which is harsh because it gives idiots a bad name. From this we can ascertain that he is about as two faced as they come. Everything he has said in the past cannot be taken at face value because he will say one thing to one person and another thing to another. And will do it on a public stage for all the world to see. I hope he gets totally crushed in the election.
Oooh oooh, does the loser get placed inside a car that is then placed inside one of those car crushers they have in the US?
Finally, this interview with Donald Trump in 2008 in which he is articulate and humble, in which he praises the Clintons with what feels like real sincerity, and in which he talks about the Afghan and Iraq wars with more clarity and insight than anything he has shown on foreign policy in this election. If THAT Donald Trump was running, this race would be a lot closer.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
The hypocrisy of people of the left never ceases to astound me. You are effectively saying that it is fine to condemn a man, without trial, based on the unsubstantiated, unreported and unwitnessed claims of a women, that allegedly occurred 30 years previously, so long as the accused is Trump and it fits with your political ideals. If it were some other bloke who you didn't know, wouldn't you be crying out for his basic human rights, of being deemed to be innocent until found guilty? Why are my comments daft? No man deserves to be found guilty by public opinion. I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years. You see, you are coming at it from the angle of hating Trump and believing every word of these women, I am far more sceptical and here is why: I have seen at first hand how extreme wealth and fame attracts beautiful women, this is nothing new. They are willing participants, happy to be part of the inner circle and to take advantage of all that is on offer, in return for ............sex. But there is another reason why I am very sceptical about these "Trump is a sexual predator" claims. Jennifer Hawkins, is, in my opinion, the most beautiful woman in the world. She won the Miss Universe title and lived in Trump Towers for a year, where Trump took her under his wing and tought her all he knows about business. She has since put that to good use and is now a very rich woman in her own right. Would a sexual predator not try to take advantage of such a beautiful woman? Not according to our Jennifer, who has nothing but nice things to say about the man and their time together. But of course you will have to search very hard to uncover her comments in the media, because it doesn't fit their agenda.
Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower?
So if you don't object to a woman stroking your pectorals it's OK for her to go ahead and grab your cock? I think you need to cut back on the late night posting, as it seems to be seriously impairing your logic, empathy and other cognitive functioning.
Finally, this interview with Donald Trump in 2008 in which he is articulate and humble, in which he praises the Clintons with what feels like real sincerity, and in which he talks about the Afghan and Iraq wars with more clarity and insight than anything he has shown on foreign policy in this election. If THAT Donald Trump was running, this race would be a lot closer.
Respectfully mate, don't bother wasting your time replying. I came on to this thread to try to bring some balance by pointing out the fraudulent activities of the Clintons. Sadly, it seems that documental evidence and facts are far less important these days, than say someone's Twitter feed. When people are so biased in their opinions that they refuse to read, discuss, or even consider evidence that is placed in front of them, then corruption will continue to thrive, and the political elite will continue to prosper to the great cost of the people and to justice in general. It is precisely because, very often, these frauds are so huge, so complex, and people these days are so time poor or just lazy, that people such as the Clintons are able to get away with them. So I see no point in wasting anymore of my time on this thread which is as unbalanced as the media coverage we have discussed, and also doesn't reflect the general popularity of Trump in America and abroad. I'll end by saying that yes, I want Trump to win, but only because I know how corrupt the Clintons are. I also believe that Trump's more radical views would be constrained were he to reach office, and he is actually very good at surrounding himself with highly competent, knowledgable people.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
The hypocrisy of people of the left never ceases to astound me. You are effectively saying that it is fine to condemn a man, without trial, based on the unsubstantiated, unreported and unwitnessed claims of a women, that allegedly occurred 30 years previously, so long as the accused is Trump and it fits with your political ideals. If it were some other bloke who you didn't know, wouldn't you be crying out for his basic human rights, of being deemed to be innocent until found guilty? Why are my comments daft? No man deserves to be found guilty by public opinion. I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years. You see, you are coming at it from the angle of hating Trump and believing every word of these women, I am far more sceptical and here is why: I have seen at first hand how extreme wealth and fame attracts beautiful women, this is nothing new. They are willing participants, happy to be part of the inner circle and to take advantage of all that is on offer, in return for ............sex. But there is another reason why I am very sceptical about these "Trump is a sexual predator" claims. Jennifer Hawkins, is, in my opinion, the most beautiful woman in the world. She won the Miss Universe title and lived in Trump Towers for a year, where Trump took her under his wing and tought her all he knows about business. She has since put that to good use and is now a very rich woman in her own right. Would a sexual predator not try to take advantage of such a beautiful woman? Not according to our Jennifer, who has nothing but nice things to say about the man and their time together. But of course you will have to search very hard to uncover her comments in the media, because it doesn't fit their agenda.
I cannot believe you're actually tempting to justify your comment.
Please read it again. Please understand that your comment is saying that, once a woman allows a man to go so far, she cannot prevent him going further.
To hold such a dangerous view, one would have to be stupid in the extreme or an unreconstructed misogynist. Or, as they go hand in hand, more likely both.
I'm sure Trump holds that view. I really hope you don't as well.
This has nothing to do with left and right politics. It's nothing to do with human rights. It's simply about the fact that no woman, in any circumstances, should be subjected to unwanted sexual attention, interference or assault. The moment you - or anyone else - attempts to justify, excuse or minimise that offence is the moment you cross the line.
I won't comment to you on his any more. In part because I wouldn't give the time of day to someone who holds disgusting, disrespectful and abhorrent views about how women can be treated.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
The hypocrisy of people of the left never ceases to astound me. You are effectively saying that it is fine to condemn a man, without trial, based on the unsubstantiated, unreported and unwitnessed claims of a women, that allegedly occurred 30 years previously, so long as the accused is Trump and it fits with your political ideals. If it were some other bloke who you didn't know, wouldn't you be crying out for his basic human rights, of being deemed to be innocent until found guilty? Why are my comments daft? No man deserves to be found guilty by public opinion. I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years.
It's very easy to say this if you haven't been in a situation where someone has grabbed you inappropriately.
@ Chizz I have re read the offending line and agree it was very poorly worded. I am guilty of trying to make my point in one line at 3am, when I should have taken far longer. I hadn't intended to post again on this thread, but I will take the time to clarify the point I was orgininally trying to make. If a women is perfectly happy to allow a man to have their arms all over them like an octopus for a length of time, to caress their breasts, to perhaps kiss them, without any rejection or complaint from the women, then I think it is perfectly acceptable for the male to attempt to move on to the next stage, without being accused of sexual assault. It's what's known as foreplay and most of us exist as a result of such human interaction. Now, if the woman then rejects his further advances but the male takes no notice of her rejection and continues, then that constitutes sexual assault and needs to be condemned in the strongest terms. It is impossible for the male to know whether his advances are welcomed or rejected unless the woman concerned attempts to complain, pushes him away, or uttters the simple word "no". Now, as I understand it, this women has admitted that she was happy to go along with his advances until his hand went up her skirt, at which point she drew the line and rejected him. I have read nothing to say that he continued, despite her rejection. If this is the case, then I do not regard it as sexual assault if indeed it happened at all ! At this stage it is nothing more than hearsay and has been dismissed by a witness on the flight as being a fabrication. But really, the point I was trying to make on this thread was regarding the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and it seems that nobody is prepared to look at the evidence in the form of the documents that I posted links to earlier, to read thoroughly, then discuss, preferring instead to concentrate on the alleged misdeamours of Trump. But that just about sums up this whole campaign. People on the whole, believe what the media wants them to believe, without questioning their motives or without looking at evidence that gives a completely different perspective, it's really quite sad, but at the end of the day in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
Comments
"“Michael had sniffed the seriousness of this story out before anyone had,” said The Australian‘s Hedley Thomas, who has led his paper’s coverage of the AWU saga. “Michael has done a lot of the work — the digging, interviewing and fact-testing — that the Canberra press gallery and many journalists failed to do.
“I’m told that many in the Labor caucus are refreshing their browsers on Smith’s blog every day, and that the PM’s staff are even more avid visitors to michaelsmithnews.com.”
Smith, who declines to call himself a journalist, was a latecomer to the media. A former police constable, army corporal, Telstra executive and symphony orchestra managing director, he got his break at another Fairfax-owned station, Brisbane’s 4BC, in 2007. While critics such as Mark Latham dismiss him as a reactionary blowhard, it was he who cracked the Craig Thomson scandal open last year in an interview with the MP.
According to Thomas, Smith is “well-intentioned”, “forensic” and “highly intelligent”. He’s also big-hearted"
That sums him up very well. Obscenities IMO should be confined to conversations between like minded individuals, not used freely on public forums such as this and I have made my feelings known to admin about this.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Women will turn out in their droves to keep him out of the white house. Signed his own death warrant with the comments about abortion and his victims last night.
A. The presidency continually alternates between parties
B. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate
C. The Republicans have a majority in the House
D. The Republicans hold 30 of 50 state governor positions
Obviously those coordinating this have organizational skills only matched by the SMT at The Valley
Friday, 21 October 2016 (GMT+10)
Time in Brisbane QLD, Australia
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/thousands-march-paris-repeal-same-sex-marriage-law-n667351
Not really very large although organisers claimed 200k
That would make America great again?
Instead of getting into more mud-raking, I thought I'd post some of the nice things I've seen today:
George H.W. Bush's letter to the incoming President Bill Clinton:
John McCain's note on losing and conceding an election
Finally, this interview with Donald Trump in 2008 in which he is articulate and humble, in which he praises the Clintons with what feels like real sincerity, and in which he talks about the Afghan and Iraq wars with more clarity and insight than anything he has shown on foreign policy in this election. If THAT Donald Trump was running, this race would be a lot closer.
The 2nd amendment in particular.
Utterly outrageous.
Hilary actually constructed an arguement that is common sense.
It still somewhat supported gun use, ok. That's what America is. It's their business.
Trump is a sick red neck full of hate
Why are my comments daft? No man deserves to be found guilty by public opinion. I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years.
You see, you are coming at it from the angle of hating Trump and believing every word of these women, I am far more sceptical and here is why:
I have seen at first hand how extreme wealth and fame attracts beautiful women, this is nothing new. They are willing participants, happy to be part of the inner circle and to take advantage of all that is on offer, in return for ............sex.
But there is another reason why I am very sceptical about these "Trump is a sexual predator" claims.
Jennifer Hawkins, is, in my opinion, the most beautiful woman in the world. She won the Miss Universe title and lived in Trump Towers for a year, where Trump took her under his wing and tought her all he knows about business. She has since put that to good use and is now a very rich woman in her own right.
Would a sexual predator not try to take advantage of such a beautiful woman? Not according to our Jennifer, who has nothing but nice things to say about the man and their time together. But of course you will have to search very hard to uncover her comments in the media, because it doesn't fit their agenda.
Please read it again. Please understand that your comment is saying that, once a woman allows a man to go so far, she cannot prevent him going further.
To hold such a dangerous view, one would have to be stupid in the extreme or an unreconstructed misogynist. Or, as they go hand in hand, more likely both.
I'm sure Trump holds that view. I really hope you don't as well.
This has nothing to do with left and right politics. It's nothing to do with human rights. It's simply about the fact that no woman, in any circumstances, should be subjected to unwanted sexual attention, interference or assault. The moment you - or anyone else - attempts to justify, excuse or minimise that offence is the moment you cross the line.
I won't comment to you on his any more. In part because I wouldn't give the time of day to someone who holds disgusting, disrespectful and abhorrent views about how women can be treated.
I have re read the offending line and agree it was very poorly worded. I am guilty of trying to make my point in one line at 3am, when I should have taken far longer. I hadn't intended to post again on this thread, but I will take the time to clarify the point I was orgininally trying to make.
If a women is perfectly happy to allow a man to have their arms all over them like an octopus for a length of time, to caress their breasts, to perhaps kiss them, without any rejection or complaint from the women, then I think it is perfectly acceptable for the male to attempt to move on to the next stage, without being accused of sexual assault. It's what's known as foreplay and most of us exist as a result of such human interaction.
Now, if the woman then rejects his further advances but the male takes no notice of her rejection and continues, then that constitutes sexual assault and needs to be condemned in the strongest terms. It is impossible for the male to know whether his advances are welcomed or rejected unless the woman concerned attempts to complain, pushes him away, or uttters the simple word "no".
Now, as I understand it, this women has admitted that she was happy to go along with his advances until his hand went up her skirt, at which point she drew the line and rejected him. I have read nothing to say that he continued, despite her rejection. If this is the case, then I do not regard it as sexual assault if indeed it happened at all ! At this stage it is nothing more than hearsay and has been dismissed by a witness on the flight as being a fabrication.
But really, the point I was trying to make on this thread was regarding the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and it seems that nobody is prepared to look at the evidence in the form of the documents that I posted links to earlier, to read thoroughly, then discuss, preferring instead to concentrate on the alleged misdeamours of Trump. But that just about sums up this whole campaign. People on the whole, believe what the media wants them to believe, without questioning their motives or without looking at evidence that gives a completely different perspective, it's really quite sad, but at the end of the day in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
Apologies