Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Media Bias and the Information Revolution

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    Making stuff up should be restricted to the opinion pages, that's true.

    To run an actual news story, one should use an actual quote from a swampster who would support someone who sexually assaulted someone while in high school. Like this fine scumbag:

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/polit...ota/index.html

    Then, on the opinion page, a pro-Cramer piece would provide a mild apology, but state that Cramer's mistake was giving credibility to anyone who assaulted someone in HS. What Cramer should have done was point out the thin evidence against Kavanaugh, and leave it there without further elaboration.
    True.

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    An opinion piece against Cramer only needs to point out that ND voters might provide a promotion for a lawmaker to a Senate seat, even though the alleged lawmaker publicly stated he would confirm a person to a significant position in the federal gov't., who might have assaulted someone and then lied about it. That's a pretty big lapse in judgement and moral character, especially for someone who wants to be a lawmaker.
    ... which is no worse than someone who wasn't 'assaulted' and then lied about it.

    ?


    • #17
      They don't want to talk about it.

      They don't want you to talk about it.

      They don't want you to know about it.

      They don't want you to see it.

      Sounds even more interesting...

      That our "media" is obvious in what it's doing,..

      .. ignoring, pretending isn't there, trying to hide or silence the mention of...

      This tells you what the people in our "media" are about.

      THEY DEFINITELY AREN'T about providing you information.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Philadelphia abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell is behind bars, serving three consecutive life sentences for a murderous crime spree that places him in the same infamous pantheon of homicidal maniacs as Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. But because his victims were hundreds of poor minority women and their children, Hollywood, women's groups and the media who usually never hesitate to sensationalize criminal masterminds are AWOL.

      Why? Because radical leftists zealously believe that abortion must be defended at all costs, even if it means whitewashing its bloody, half-century legacy of mass genocide in our nation's inner cities.

      In 2013, Gosnell was convicted of murdering three babies born alive in his death factory and found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of 41-year-old Bhutanese refugee Karnamaya Mongar, who died of a inhumanely administered drug overdose at Gosnell's "Women's Medical Society."

      For 15 years, public officials at the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Department of State, and the Philadelphia Department of Public Health officials did nothing to stop Gosnell. Nearby hospital administrators and "women's health" advocates at the National Abortion Federation knew he was a butcher, but also sat on their hands.

      In their 2017 Regnery book on Gosnell, which they adapted into the new movie, McAleer and McElhinney exposed the monster and his enablers with painstaking dedication to original documentation and investigative journalism. The PG-13 film stays true to the trial record without having to resort to gratuitous graphic imagery.

      Whatever your position on abortion, this brave, independent film is an eye-opener that will change hearts and minds. Perhaps what the speech-suppressers who don't want you to know about Gosnell fear most is this chilling conclusion: Deadly indifference to protecting life isn't tangential to the abortion industry's barbaric practices but at its very core.

      I do believe this groundbreaking film by indie producers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney is the most important movie in America right now a true-life saga of good vs. evil, deadly medical malpractice, systemic government malfeasance and cultural apathy toward the most vulnerable members of our society.

      I first reported on this real-life horror story nearly eight years ago, but you've probably not heard or read a word about Gosnell in the mainstream press, TV news or online. The conspiracy of silence is the result of both malign neglect and active suppression of inconvenient truths:
      • One CNN commentator flippantly explained that the network's lack of interest was a "business decision," not bias.
      • Pro-abortion censors at crowdsourcing giant Kickstarter banned McAleer and McElhinney from raising money for the project leading small donors across the country to help conduct the largest-ever crowdfunded movie on Indiegogo. (Full disclosure: I put my money where my principles are and donated three times, in addition to using my social media platforms to lend a hand.)
      • Taxpayer-supported National Public Radio refused to run sponsored ads describing Gosnell as an "abortionist" because its legal department determined the accurate description violated the left-leaning network's "value neutral" platform. LOL.
      • And this past week, Facebook banned advertising for the movie a continuation of its systemic crackdown on conservative speech.


      What are they trying to hide?


      https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...never-heard-of



      ?


      • #18
        Media hypocrisy on display for all to see

        It's up to us in the culture of America to reject these people and what they stand for

        They do not represent us - they are wrong and dishonest

        They represent a small group of fringe nuts who hate America and most of US

        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ...it was real funny and perfectly OK when a Saturday Night Live skit on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings last weekend used the word queen and other gay-world references to imply that Republican Senator Lindsay Graham was secretly gay.

        The left are also the ones who didnt complain the other night when Don Lemon laughed along with his panel of CNN nobodies as they mocked Kanye West for being President Trumps token Negro.

        If any Republican or Fox News host ever referred to someone like Lemon [as] queen or called him CNNs token Negro, theyd be branded a racist homophobe by the liberal media and forced off the air forever.

        ...

        The voting public is not fooled by this double standard in the liberal media.

        They know its not Republicans who are telling their people to chase politicians or pundits out of restaurants.

        They know its Democrats like Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Irresponsible Democrats like her are going to get someone killed

        ...thanks to the Democrats ugly smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh, Republican senators like Susan Collins and Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders need security guards 24/7.

        Its not the new Supreme Court Justice whos evil.

        Its the Democrat Party and the nasty progressives whove taken it over and are willing to say or do anything or destroy anyone to bring down President Trump.

        Maybe this is not something new. Maybe the Democrats have always been this evil.


        ...

        Maybe my father foresaw the future when he said in the early 1960s that he didnt leave the Democrat Party, the party left him.

        Where are the Hubert Humphreys, Scoop Jacksons, and Daniel Moynihans? Where are great Democratic statesmen of yesterday? They don't exist.

        The Democrat Party is no longer the Party of FDR. Its the party of destruction.

        Sometimes it almost makes me glad that my father is not alive to witness this sad state of our politics or FDR. Or Lincoln. Or the Founding Fathers.


        https://www.newsmax.com/reagan/democ.../12/id/886110/


        ?


        • #19
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          True.



          ... which is no worse than someone who wasn't 'assaulted' and then lied about it.
          In a better world, it is expected that people on both sides of an issue stand firm, rather than accept fuzzy moral boundaries only for one's political allies.

          ?


          • #20
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            In a better world, it is expected that people on both sides of an issue stand firm, rather than accept fuzzy moral boundaries only for one's political allies.
            YES ...

            It has long been my observation we need to learn (or maybe re-learn) how to argue. An argument SHOULD be the intersection of two opposing ideas: We should be able to use "argument" and "Debate" interchangeably, but unfortunately, we have devolved into some mutant of reasoned argument. This mutant insists "you" must capitulate to "my" position or be ostracized, insulted, harmed, or disparaged. The rules that apply to me, should also apply to you whether or not we agree.

            Most of all, we should extricate my ego (and your ego and his ego ... etc.) from our argument. If you make and support a valid point, I should not be thinking "I can't let him win." I should accept the point and move on. Us arguing SHOULD be a means to vet our positions (and assumptions). It SHOULD make us better equipped with facts and support.

            But it no longer does (if it ever did).

            ?


            • #21
              Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

              YES ...

              It has long been my observation we need to learn (or maybe re-learn) how to argue. An argument SHOULD be the intersection of two opposing ideas: We should be able to use "argument" and "Debate" interchangeably, but unfortunately, we have devolved into some mutant of reasoned argument. This mutant insists "you" must capitulate to "my" position or be ostracized, insulted, harmed, or disparaged. The rules that apply to me, should also apply to you whether or not we agree.

              Most of all, we should extricate my ego (and your ego and his ego ... etc.) from our argument. If you make and support a valid point, I should not be thinking "I can't let him win." I should accept the point and move on. Us arguing SHOULD be a means to vet our positions (and assumptions). It SHOULD make us better equipped with facts and support.

              But it no longer does (if it ever did).
              Yes, and most honest, thoughtful political debate should preclude the phrase "you're racist!"

              ?


              • #22
                Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                Yes, and most honest, thoughtful political debate should preclude the phrase "you're racist!"
                What a racist thing to say.

                Pelosi.jpg

                ?


                • #23
                  ... but we still CAN accuse people appointed to high positions of some kind of sexual impropriety.

                  Even decades later !

                  Works every time, they can't disprove it. No one dares question a woman who was "a victim." ... by golly, you can get 'em every...

                  Oops, nevermind. It doesn't work anymore. What happened ?

                  Back to basics I guess ! Racist, homophobe, white supremist....

                  ?


                  • #24
                    November mid terms will tell the tale: IF they win significantly, they will know it worked yet one more time. If they lose or do not win significantly (meaning control of one or both of the houses), then they will put the woman-hater/abuser tactic back in the box to save it for another day.

                    No, they will NEVER admit defeat.

                    ?


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                      November mid terms will tell the tale: IF they win significantly, they will know it worked yet one more time. If they lose or do not win significantly (meaning control of one or both of the houses), then they will put the woman-hater/abuser tactic back in the box to save it for another day.

                      No, they will NEVER admit defeat.
                      Right now, the Dems will concentrate on peeling away the female vote (among independents. The base is pretty much in the bag for both sides). Identity politics is a weak strategy IMO, but there's always hope that the Dems will also point out the level of corruption and lack of swamp draining going on in DC. That would do more to move the undecided block into blue territory.

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                        They don't want to talk about it.

                        They don't want you to talk about it.

                        They don't want you to know about it.

                        They don't want you to see it.

                        Sounds even more interesting...

                        That our "media" is obvious in what it's doing,..

                        .. ignoring, pretending isn't there, trying to hide or silence the mention of...

                        This tells you what the people in our "media" are about.

                        THEY DEFINITELY AREN'T about providing you information.

                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Philadelphia abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell is behind bars, serving three consecutive life sentences for a murderous crime spree that places him in the same infamous pantheon of homicidal maniacs as Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. But because his victims were hundreds of poor minority women and their children, Hollywood, women's groups and the media who usually never hesitate to sensationalize criminal masterminds are AWOL.

                        Why? Because radical leftists zealously believe that abortion must be defended at all costs, even if it means whitewashing its bloody, half-century legacy of mass genocide in our nation's inner cities.

                        In 2013, Gosnell was convicted of murdering three babies born alive in his death factory and found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of 41-year-old Bhutanese refugee Karnamaya Mongar, who died of a inhumanely administered drug overdose at Gosnell's "Women's Medical Society."

                        For 15 years, public officials at the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Department of State, and the Philadelphia Department of Public Health officials did nothing to stop Gosnell. Nearby hospital administrators and "women's health" advocates at the National Abortion Federation knew he was a butcher, but also sat on their hands.

                        In their 2017 Regnery book on Gosnell, which they adapted into the new movie, McAleer and McElhinney exposed the monster and his enablers with painstaking dedication to original documentation and investigative journalism. The PG-13 film stays true to the trial record without having to resort to gratuitous graphic imagery.

                        Whatever your position on abortion, this brave, independent film is an eye-opener that will change hearts and minds. Perhaps what the speech-suppressers who don't want you to know about Gosnell fear most is this chilling conclusion: Deadly indifference to protecting life isn't tangential to the abortion industry's barbaric practices but at its very core.

                        I do believe this groundbreaking film by indie producers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney is the most important movie in America right now a true-life saga of good vs. evil, deadly medical malpractice, systemic government malfeasance and cultural apathy toward the most vulnerable members of our society.

                        I first reported on this real-life horror story nearly eight years ago, but you've probably not heard or read a word about Gosnell in the mainstream press, TV news or online. The conspiracy of silence is the result of both malign neglect and active suppression of inconvenient truths:
                        • One CNN commentator flippantly explained that the network's lack of interest was a "business decision," not bias.
                        • Pro-abortion censors at crowdsourcing giant Kickstarter banned McAleer and McElhinney from raising money for the project leading small donors across the country to help conduct the largest-ever crowdfunded movie on Indiegogo. (Full disclosure: I put my money where my principles are and donated three times, in addition to using my social media platforms to lend a hand.)
                        • Taxpayer-supported National Public Radio refused to run sponsored ads describing Gosnell as an "abortionist" because its legal department determined the accurate description violated the left-leaning network's "value neutral" platform. LOL.
                        • And this past week, Facebook banned advertising for the movie a continuation of its systemic crackdown on conservative speech.


                        What are they trying to hide?


                        https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...never-heard-of


                        Contrast the media's coverage of Gosnell's murders and the murder (no, I am not going to say "alleged") of Jamal Khashoggi. Gosnell, an abortionist, murdered three innocent, defenseless babies. The media was relatively quiet or absent in their coverage of this grotesque man's trial and conviction. Contrast that with the coverage of the murder of a FOREIGN national (not even a U.S. citizen) who was murdered in another country, in the consulate (sovereign territory) of a third country. Why? First and foremost because he had written some columns for the Washington Post (and the narcissism of the news media knows no bounds), and second because the moral outrage they are promulgating puts a President they hate into a no-win situation politically and diplomatically. If this had occurred during the Obama administration, the same reporters would pull their punches to help Obama avoid having to make difficult diplomatically problematic decisions.

                        And of course the media has not and would NEVER juxtapose the Saudi's targeting one of THEIR citizens for assassination with the fact that Obama actually targeted a U.S. citizen for assassination as well.

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                          Contrast the media's coverage of Gosnell's murders and the murder (no, I am not going to say "alleged") of Jamal Khashoggi. Gosnell, an abortionist, murdered three innocent, defenseless babies. The media was relatively quiet or absent in their coverage of this grotesque man's trial and conviction. Contrast that with the coverage of the murder of a FOREIGN national (not even a U.S. citizen) who was murdered in another country, in the consulate (sovereign territory) of a third country. Why? First and foremost because he had written some columns for the Washington Post (and the narcissism of the news media knows no bounds), and second because the moral outrage they are promulgating puts a President they hate into a no-win situation politically and diplomatically. If this had occurred during the Obama administration, the same reporters would pull their punches to help Obama avoid having to make difficult diplomatically problematic decisions.

                          And of course the media has not and would NEVER juxtapose the Saudi's targeting one of THEIR citizens for assassination with the fact that Obama actually targeted a U.S. citizen for assassination as well.
                          It is obvious to those of us who pay attention to these kinds of things.

                          We have to hope a lot more can see what is happening... I suspect they do, but it's hard to tell sometimes.

                          ?


                          • #28
                            That's a surprise.... it isn't.

                            The "media" isn't the media - we knew this. . some of us did.

                            "NBC" definitely hurt itself with this.

                            Right out in the open now, we see what todays "media" is really about.

                            They're an arm of the extreme left democrat party and will to lie to you to promote causes they want you to support.

                            They will lie and slander people they don't support.

                            They are best ignored.

                            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            NBC News concealed info refuting gang rape claim vs. Kavanaugh

                            NBC News is in the center of a new controversy after admittingly sitting on information that contradicted the gang rape charges made by the client of attorney Michael Avenatti against now-United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

                            ....Last month, Avenatti claimed that he had a witness corroborating his client, Julie Swetnicks, account that Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes during high school new supposed evidence that came at the same time the beleaguered judge was fighting off another uncorroborated allegation of sexual assault.

                            Avenatti connected NBC News with an anonymous woman he claimed could corroborate Swetnick's allegations, but [she] instead accused the lawyer of twisting her words, Fox News reported. Still, NBC went with Swetnick's story without disclosing the exculpatory reporting.

                            Nearly three weeks after Kavanaughs confirmation proceedings came to a close on October 6 with a 5048 Senate vote confirming him as the newest SCOTUS justice, NBC News published a shocking article on Thursday revealing that there were numerous inconsistencies with Swetnicks accusations, and noting that there was a suspected corroboration between the news outlet and the accusing party to conceal information that would have helped the beleaguered nominee.

                            When Sen. Chuck Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for criminal investigation Thursday, he cited Swetnick's interview with NBC News as evidence the two were trying to mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee, NBC News divulged in an article it published Thursday with the headline, New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh.

                            NBC News admitted in its own story that the unidentified woman rejected Avenattis sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on her behalf one that backed Swetnicks allegations against Kavanaugh.

                            Reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only skimmed the declaration, NBC News Kate Snow and Anna Schecter reported in the article. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one.

                            NBC News indicated that she had no real testimony against Kavanaugh.

                            When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, No." NBC News revealed. She did describe a culture of heavy drinking in high school that she took part in, and said Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, were part of that group.

                            When NBC asked her about the claims made by Avenatti and Swetnick, she repudiated the allegations again.

                            "I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence male or female, she told NBC News, according the left-leaning news outlet.

                            NBC indicated that it knew about the lack of confidence the witness had in the controversial attorney.

                            NBCs latest story also noted that Avenatti attempted to thwart the reporting process and the woman changed her mind several times before eventually texting the network a final time, Flood noted.

                            She went on to unabashedly accuse Avenatti of lying about her testimony.

                            I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti, the women wrote to NBC News, according to Fox News. I do not like that he twisted my words.

                            NBC News reportedly did not respond to a request for comment immediately after receiving the conflicting information temporarily keeping a media firestorm at bay and keeping the heat on Kavanaugh.

                            As the mainstream media put a focus on alleged misconduct by Kavanaugh prior to his confirmation, NBC News reporting was among the most salacious, Flood noted. The network aired an interview with Swetnick on Oct. 1 despite admitting it could not substantiate her claims and that she had changed her story.

                            NBC News culpability in allegedly attempting to manipulate the outcome of Kavanaughs confirmation hearings was corroborated by one Ivy League scholar.

                            At the time, Cornell Law School professor and Legal Insurrection blogger William Jacobson told Fox News that outlets like NBC News provide the fuel that feeds the anti-Kavanaugh firestorm that was sweeping the mainstream media ahead of the polarizing confirmation vote, Flood added.

                            As it turns out, Avenattis client also could not solidify and confirm her accusations against Kavanaugh.

                            In the NBC News interview that aired on Oct. 1, Swetnick backtracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of boys," NBC News revealed.

                            Avenatti and NBC News guilty of malpractice?

                            NBC News is not the only one under fire as this latest scandal unfolds, as the leftist attorney exposed for unscrupulous efforts to undermine key members of the Republican Party with frivolous accusations is facing dire consequences for his devious machinations inside and outside the courtroom and confirmation hearings in the nations capital.


                            Avenatti who recently lost the defamation case he filed against President Trump on behalf of porn star Stormy Daniels has been evicted from his law offices and owes a former colleague $5 million, [and] has earned a reputation for wild claims, Flood pointed out.

                            Meanwhile, conservative critics are lashing out at NBC News for running a story exposing its own covert reporting schemes which have been called out for demonstrating poor and inaccurate journalistic practices.

                            That evidence was known to NBC more than three weeks ago right when Kavanaugh was about to receive a vote on the Senate floor yet were just hearing about it now, The Federalist Co-founder Sean Davis tweeted. Why did NBC News withhold that information which reflects poorly on Avenatti for three weeks? It wouldve been a bombshell had it been reported at the time.

                            And the bad news is likely not over for Avenatti and his problematic client with Grassley announcing earlier this week that a criminal conspiracy probe was bring waged against the two for providing false statements to Congress.

                            The Republican lawmaker cited contradictory statements by both Avenatti and Swetnick in media interviews and pointed to the NBC interview on Oct. 1, where Swetnick backtracked on her central claim that she saw Kavanaugh spiking punch at high school parties in the 1980s, Flood informed.

                            It was further argued that NBC News is only coming clean now because it has already lost its fight to help Democrats keep Kavanaugh off the bench of the nations highest court and possibly keep the notorious 1973 landmark SCOTUS case Roe v. Wade from being overturned to make abortion illegal once again across the U.S.

                            NBC sat on this information which would have undermined some of Kavanaughs accusers and is only now releasing it after Kavanaugh was confirmed and its interview was mentioned in a referral to the DOJ, The Daily Wire explained. NBC was the worst offender, [as] the network interviewed Swetnick even though it said up front it couldnt verify her claims.

                            In addition to Avenatti being accused of legal malpractice as an attorney of law, NBC is being charged with malpractice by conservative journalists regarding its underhanded reporting strategies.

                            This is Journalism Malpractice 101 you dont put out possibly defamatory information you cant verify, The Daily Wires Ashe Schow asserted. Of course, the media was totally okay with doing this if it meant keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court [and] they didnt care about the consequences to his family or his reputation.


                            https://www.onenewsnow.com/media/201...m-vs-kavanaugh

                            ?


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                              That's a surprise.... it isn't.

                              The "media" isn't the media - we knew this. . some of us did.

                              "NBC" definitely hurt itself with this.

                              Right out in the open now, we see what todays "media" is really about.

                              They're an arm of the extreme left democrat party and will to lie to you to promote causes they want you to support.

                              They will lie and slander people they don't support.

                              They are best ignored.

                              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              NBC News concealed info refuting gang rape claim vs. Kavanaugh

                              NBC News is in the center of a new controversy after admittingly sitting on information that contradicted the gang rape charges made by the client of attorney Michael Avenatti against now-United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

                              ....Last month, Avenatti claimed that he had a witness corroborating his client, Julie Swetnicks, account that Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes during high school new supposed evidence that came at the same time the beleaguered judge was fighting off another uncorroborated allegation of sexual assault.

                              Avenatti connected NBC News with an anonymous woman he claimed could corroborate Swetnick's allegations, but [she] instead accused the lawyer of twisting her words, Fox News reported. Still, NBC went with Swetnick's story without disclosing the exculpatory reporting.

                              Nearly three weeks after Kavanaughs confirmation proceedings came to a close on October 6 with a 5048 Senate vote confirming him as the newest SCOTUS justice, NBC News published a shocking article on Thursday revealing that there were numerous inconsistencies with Swetnicks accusations, and noting that there was a suspected corroboration between the news outlet and the accusing party to conceal information that would have helped the beleaguered nominee.

                              When Sen. Chuck Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for criminal investigation Thursday, he cited Swetnick's interview with NBC News as evidence the two were trying to mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee, NBC News divulged in an article it published Thursday with the headline, New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh.

                              NBC News admitted in its own story that the unidentified woman rejected Avenattis sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on her behalf one that backed Swetnicks allegations against Kavanaugh.

                              Reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only skimmed the declaration, NBC News Kate Snow and Anna Schecter reported in the article. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one.

                              NBC News indicated that she had no real testimony against Kavanaugh.

                              When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, No." NBC News revealed. She did describe a culture of heavy drinking in high school that she took part in, and said Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, were part of that group.

                              When NBC asked her about the claims made by Avenatti and Swetnick, she repudiated the allegations again.

                              "I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence male or female, she told NBC News, according the left-leaning news outlet.

                              NBC indicated that it knew about the lack of confidence the witness had in the controversial attorney.

                              NBCs latest story also noted that Avenatti attempted to thwart the reporting process and the woman changed her mind several times before eventually texting the network a final time, Flood noted.

                              She went on to unabashedly accuse Avenatti of lying about her testimony.

                              I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti, the women wrote to NBC News, according to Fox News. I do not like that he twisted my words.

                              NBC News reportedly did not respond to a request for comment immediately after receiving the conflicting information temporarily keeping a media firestorm at bay and keeping the heat on Kavanaugh.

                              As the mainstream media put a focus on alleged misconduct by Kavanaugh prior to his confirmation, NBC News reporting was among the most salacious, Flood noted. The network aired an interview with Swetnick on Oct. 1 despite admitting it could not substantiate her claims and that she had changed her story.

                              NBC News culpability in allegedly attempting to manipulate the outcome of Kavanaughs confirmation hearings was corroborated by one Ivy League scholar.

                              At the time, Cornell Law School professor and Legal Insurrection blogger William Jacobson told Fox News that outlets like NBC News provide the fuel that feeds the anti-Kavanaugh firestorm that was sweeping the mainstream media ahead of the polarizing confirmation vote, Flood added.

                              As it turns out, Avenattis client also could not solidify and confirm her accusations against Kavanaugh.

                              In the NBC News interview that aired on Oct. 1, Swetnick backtracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of boys," NBC News revealed.

                              Avenatti and NBC News guilty of malpractice?

                              NBC News is not the only one under fire as this latest scandal unfolds, as the leftist attorney exposed for unscrupulous efforts to undermine key members of the Republican Party with frivolous accusations is facing dire consequences for his devious machinations inside and outside the courtroom and confirmation hearings in the nations capital.


                              Avenatti who recently lost the defamation case he filed against President Trump on behalf of porn star Stormy Daniels has been evicted from his law offices and owes a former colleague $5 million, [and] has earned a reputation for wild claims, Flood pointed out.

                              Meanwhile, conservative critics are lashing out at NBC News for running a story exposing its own covert reporting schemes which have been called out for demonstrating poor and inaccurate journalistic practices.

                              That evidence was known to NBC more than three weeks ago right when Kavanaugh was about to receive a vote on the Senate floor yet were just hearing about it now, The Federalist Co-founder Sean Davis tweeted. Why did NBC News withhold that information which reflects poorly on Avenatti for three weeks? It wouldve been a bombshell had it been reported at the time.

                              And the bad news is likely not over for Avenatti and his problematic client with Grassley announcing earlier this week that a criminal conspiracy probe was bring waged against the two for providing false statements to Congress.

                              The Republican lawmaker cited contradictory statements by both Avenatti and Swetnick in media interviews and pointed to the NBC interview on Oct. 1, where Swetnick backtracked on her central claim that she saw Kavanaugh spiking punch at high school parties in the 1980s, Flood informed.

                              It was further argued that NBC News is only coming clean now because it has already lost its fight to help Democrats keep Kavanaugh off the bench of the nations highest court and possibly keep the notorious 1973 landmark SCOTUS case Roe v. Wade from being overturned to make abortion illegal once again across the U.S.

                              NBC sat on this information which would have undermined some of Kavanaughs accusers and is only now releasing it after Kavanaugh was confirmed and its interview was mentioned in a referral to the DOJ, The Daily Wire explained. NBC was the worst offender, [as] the network interviewed Swetnick even though it said up front it couldnt verify her claims.

                              In addition to Avenatti being accused of legal malpractice as an attorney of law, NBC is being charged with malpractice by conservative journalists regarding its underhanded reporting strategies.

                              This is Journalism Malpractice 101 you dont put out possibly defamatory information you cant verify, The Daily Wires Ashe Schow asserted. Of course, the media was totally okay with doing this if it meant keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court [and] they didnt care about the consequences to his family or his reputation.


                              https://www.onenewsnow.com/media/201...m-vs-kavanaugh
                              And Prof. Blasey "Nothing to Gain" Ford's GOFUNDME accounts is now holding upwards of $840k. Nothing to gain indeed.

                              Realclearpolitics Investigations has a very good article on this:

                              https://www.realclearinvestigations....e_growing.html

                              ?


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                                And Prof. Blasey "Nothing to Gain" Ford's GOFUNDME accounts is now holding upwards of $840k. Nothing to gain indeed.

                                Realclearpolitics Investigations has a very good article on this:

                                https://www.realclearinvestigations....e_growing.html
                                Yes, even if you're a fraud and a liar, if you're working to help destroy a conservative cause, person or principle - IT PAYS WELL !!!

                                People will do nearly anything for money, nothing new here.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X