Friday, March 4, 2022

The Globalist Neo-Liberal/-Con UniParty Post WWII War Against Independent Media and Classical Liberalism Continues...

38 comments:

  1. The handle of the bullwhip reeks of Robert Mapplethorpe's butthole.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You weren't supposed to drink the 'Piss Christ" punch, beamish...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just because I don't have the genocidal hatred of all things American required to have considered voting for Trump longer than a third of a second doesn't mean you should hate me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So the left is eating itself. Bon appetit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Next on Father Charles Coughlin's Social Justice podcast....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Next time try the blue pill, Neo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. All you globalists will then realize that you Lefty-Righties were in the same matrix all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let me know when the right isn't left anymore. I'll bring the chainsaw when you want to cut Medicare.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm willing to give you Medicare back the minute you refund me the 43 years of wages paid in with interest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...and while your at it, I'll take the Social Security lump sum too. I figure $2 million ought to about cover my payments and interest.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Knock on FDR's and LBJ's tomb for that. I can send you a note that says "sucker" on nice stationery though.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...or you can keep paying in 'til the Ponzi scheme collapses on top of you the day you are set to retire. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. We need to annex more countries and make them pay for it

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...or just force China to buy our Afghani opium...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thailand opium is better and you don't get the buzzkill Taliban open mike poetry though

    ReplyDelete
  16. RT isn't "independent media".

    Wikipedia: RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation and conspiracy theories. UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.

    ReplyDelete
  17. CNN never broadcast any materially misleading content? Who Knew?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I doubt it. Though maybe you can cite an example. But CNN isn't state controlled or a propaganda outlet for the US government.

    CNN scores highest of all TV news sources in terms of being high quality (82%), accurate (78%), trustworthy (78%), and impartial (71%). :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. 18% low quality, 22% inaccurate, 22% untrustworthy, and 29% biased

    Dove chocolate is awesome but their soap tastes like shit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 18% low quality, 22% inaccurate, 22% untrustworthy, and 29% biased

    Dove chocolate is awesome but their soap tastes like shit.

    ReplyDelete
  21. LOL! He filed a nuisance lawsuit and got paid to go away. If there was any merit to his lawsuit he wouldn't have settled. His lawyers probably took most of whatever pittance CNN offered him to f*ck off.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So he got $75,000 for a few hours of paperwork?

    ReplyDelete
  23. In total, Nick Sandmann’s settlements from The Washington Post, CNN, and NBCUniversal could amount to $775 million but this amount could also be $100 million. As he is a student, the amounts of his settlements are sealed.

    What a nuisance!

    ReplyDelete
  24. CNN did not pay him $225 million. They paid less than what it would cost them to go to trial. And Sandmann's lawyers (knowing they'd likely lose and get nothing) told him to accept.

    ReplyDelete
  25. There you go again, reading minds... yet assuming that Sandmann didn't have a legit. case.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ...let's see... a legit case that goes to trial gets about 1/4 of the "ask"...
    settled would be around 1/8... putting the $100m in the example speculation above into "better perspective".

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm sure CNN's bean counters sent out a memo asking news writers to not defame nuisances further.

    ReplyDelete
  28. There you go again, reading minds... yet assuming that Sandmann didn't have a legit. case.

    What is your proof that his lawyers thought they'd win? You don't have any. Your link concerns a case that went to trial. This one didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Because it was cheaper than paying their lawyers to take the case to trial.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Their lawyers would have lost them $775 million?

    ReplyDelete
  31. No. You have to pay lawyers to take a case to trial. You settle if it costs less to do so than what the lawyer's fees would be.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The lawyers would cost $775 million to win a case that allegedly had no merit? Why doesn't everyone sue CNN then? It's free money, right?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I assume your stupidity on this subject is intentional. Apparently you believe it's funny. Or maybe you are that stupid. fyi, Sandmann was suing CNN for 225 million. 775 million was the total of all the frivolous lawsuits Sandmann's lawyers filed.

    If you think you can get free money by suing CNN, go ahead and file. I doubt you will be able to find a lawyer who will represent you though.

    ReplyDelete