Discussion:
President Trump Denies Trying To Fire Mueller In June
Add Reply
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-27 20:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
you still can't define "liberal"
Rot in HELL, little man Ball!

YOU are little man Ball, let's get folks up to speed on who and what YOU
are!

LITTLE MAN BALL-----

PARK THAT JETTA!!!

PICK THOSE ORANGES!!!

SELL THOSE SOLAR PANELS!!!


https://www.arivify.com/property/search/Lj5tUOUy7

Owner Name Jonathan Ball
Address 5327 Shepard Ave
City Sacramento
State CA
Zip Code 95819
Land Use Resid. Single Family
Land Size 0.168 acres
Appraised Value $420130
Assessed Value $420130
Legal Description Sac:00501110170000

http://reach150.com/solarcity-northern-california/review/62015/jonathan-ball


Jonathan Ball
Field Energy Consultant SolarCity Northern California
Sacramento, CA

Recommendations

Be the first to leave a recommendation for Jonathan Ball.
Cornelis Tromp
2018-01-27 22:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
you still can't define "liberal"
Rot in HELL, little man Ball!
YOU are little man Ball, let's get folks up to speed on who and what YOU
are!
Stalk much?
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-27 22:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cornelis Tromp
Post by Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
you still can't define "liberal"
Rot in HELL, little man Ball!
YOU are little man Ball, let's get folks up to speed on who and what YOU
are!
Stalk much?
Like he did with:

LeRoy Baxter?

Sheila Bryant Jackson?

et al....
Cornelis Tromp
2018-01-28 00:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cornelis Tromp
Post by Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
you still can't define "liberal"
Rot in HELL, little man Ball!
YOU are little man Ball, let's get folks up to speed on who and what YOU
are!
Stalk much?
I'll take that as a yes.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 00:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cornelis Tromp
Post by Cornelis Tromp
Post by Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
you still can't define "liberal"
Rot in HELL, little man Ball!
YOU are little man Ball, let's get folks up to speed on who and what YOU
are!
Stalk much?
I'll take that as a yes.
You'll snip and prevaricate, yes.
Polar Vortex
2018-01-28 18:43:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:10 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
"Sources say"
"Sources tell us"
"Anonymous Sources"
"Confidential Sources"
I can count at least 4.....
CNN and MSNBC WaPoand the rest.... use them all the time.
And still better than that whacked-out rag World Net Daily!
LOL
Did they find Obama's birth certificate yet?
Wasn't it laying under the gun that shot Jimmy Hoffa?
You tell me-- you're the one that peruses WND.
Your problem with WorldNetDaily is????
Polar Vortex
2018-01-28 19:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
CNN got a date wrong in that story and corrected it the next day.
CNN literally IS "fake news"!!!!

Period.

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/12/10/the-7-worst-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-mainstream-media-n2257896

NBC And CNN Lying About The George Zimmerman Tape: “We mentioned the
other day how during a Today Show segment NBC had edited the 911 phone
call of George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
The edited version made him sound like a racial profiler.

Here's the transcript of the audio NBC played:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here's the actual transcript:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or
something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

“NBC isn’t the only network slinking away from overcooking the case
against George Zimmerman’s alleged racism. On the March 21 edition of
Anderson Cooper 360, a CNN audio expert enhanced Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call
and suggested he had used a racial slur, 'f--ing coon,' as he was
following Trayvon Martin. Reporter Gary Tuchman asserted: 'It certainly
sounds like that word to me.'

...Two weeks later on the same show on April 4, CNN re-assessed the tape
with another CNN expert, and now felt it suggests George Zimmerman was
just chilly, muttering the words ‘f--ing cold’ under his breath. Tuchman
explained: ‘The reason some say that would be relevant is because it was
unseasonably cold in Florida that night and raining.’ Oopsy.

...Oddly, on other CNN programs, they’re declaring the word could be
‘punks’ instead of ‘cold.’ With this kind of analysis, if Zimmerman were
charged, it would be tough to talk a jury into reading Zimmerman’s mind.
CNN can’t seem to do it.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/for-chris-cillizza-here-are-five-fake-stories-cnn-pushed/

Here are five examples of CNN reporting or pushing false stories:

False Story 1: CNN Reports Hands Up, Don’t Shoot

In December 2014, a CNN panel consisting of Margaret Hoover, Sally Kohn,
Sunny Hostin and Mel Robbins all put their hands up and displayed a sign
saying, “I Can’t Breathe,” a reference to the slogan “Hands Up, Don’t
Shoot,” which is based on the idea that Michael Brown had his hands up
when shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014.

Sally Kohn said that “thousands of Americans are marching in New York
and Washington and across the country, demanding a justice system that
applies the same to everybody and honors our values, and we want you to
know our hearts are out there marching with them.”

This isn’t the first time CNN’s Kohn has repeated the claim that Michael
Brown had his hands up before being shot:

Many allegations swirling re #FergusonShooting. Only sure facts,
according to police, is Mike Brown was unarmed and fleeing with hands up.

— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) August 16, 2014

However, this claim has been proven to be untrue. Barack Obama’s Justice
Department investigated the shooting and concluded that the use of force
was not unreasonable and that Brown charged at Officer Darren Wilson
before being shot.

The Washington Post ran an article in early 2015 on its’ “Fact Checker”
blog entitled, “Hands up, don’t shoot’ did not happen in Ferguson.”

False Story 2: CNN Falsely Claims Sherelle Smith Was ‘Calling For Peace’

Sherelle Smith, the sister of Sylville Smith, a black male shot by a
black police officer in August spoke to news reporters after his
shooting. CNN deceptively edited the clip to make it sound like she was
calling for peace in response to the shooting, when in fact she was
encouraging violent behavior in the suburbs of the city.

CNN correspondent Ana Cabrera said that Smith was “calling for peace,”
and showed a clip of Smith saying, “Don’t bring the violence here and
the ignorance here.”

In the full video, Smith also says, “Stop burning down shit we need in
our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn they shit down. We
need our shit. We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it.”

When called out, CNN later updated a video clip on their website,
saying, “An earlier version of this story mischaracterized what the
victim’s sister was trying to convey.”

Rioters in Milwaukee attacked police, even hitting one in the head with
a brick. Eight businesses were burned and a squad car was destroyed.
(RELATED: Growing Number Of Race Riots Leave A Dark Mark On Obama’s Legacy)

False Story 3: CNN Says It’s Illegal To Look At Wikileaks

In one baffling moment from October 2016, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo claimed
that it was illegal to look at Wikileaks.

“Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen
documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about
this, you’re learning from us,” Cuomo said during on television.

During that time, Wikileaks was dumping hacked emails from John
Podesta’s inbox on a day-to-day basis, many of which reflected
negatively on the Clinton campaign. (RELATED: The 44 Most Damning
Stories From WikiLeaks)

Emails released by Wikileaks also showed that CNN collaborated with the
DNC to make interview questions for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Of course, this isn’t true. It is not against the law to view Wikileaks
or possess hacked documents, as long as you are not involved in breaking
the law by hacking them.

False Story 4: CNN Says Rape Is Pre-Existing Condition Under ACHA

A headline on CNN.com from early May read, “Rape and domestic violence
could be pre-existing conditions.” CNN argued that the American Health
Care Act (AHCA) could make sexual assault a pre-existing condition,
preventing women who survive rape from getting health care.

This claim was contested by many fact checkers.

The Washington Post posted an article on its “Fact Checker” blog saying,
“Despite critics’ claims, the GOP health bill doesn’t classify rape or
sexual assault as a preexisting condition.”

Polifact, which has previously displayed some liberal-leaning bias, said
the claim that “[u]nder the House Republican health plan, sexual assault
is a pre-existing condition” was “misleading” and “mostly false.”

False Story 5: CNN Had To Correct False Comey Report

An example most closely related to Trump’s comments Tuesday can be found
in CNN recently having to correct their reporting about James Comey.

CNN reported on June 6th that Comey was going to contradict President
Trump’s claim that he wasn’t under FBI investigation in his Senate
testimony, a report which obviously was going to make Trump look like a
liar.

The article, originally titled, “Comey expected to refute Trump,”
featured in its byline Jake Tapper, Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, and
Brian Rokus.

Of course, this isn’t what Comey said in the Senate. Instead, Comey did
not dispute Trump’s claims that he told the president that he was not
under FBI investigation. (RELATED: Comey Confirms: Trump Wasn’t Under
FBI Investigation)

The post was later updated with a correction, reading, “This article was
published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The
article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not
directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under
investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was
published.”
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 20:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
He's not a moderate, Ed.  You haven't seen enough of his posts.
Rot in HELL, little man Ball!

YOU are little man Ball, let's get folks up to speed on who and what YOU
are!

LITTLE MAN BALL-----

PARK THAT JETTA!!!

PICK THOSE ORANGES!!!

SELL THOSE SOLAR PANELS!!!


https://www.arivify.com/property/search/Lj5tUOUy7

Owner Name Jonathan Ball
Address 5327 Shepard Ave
City Sacramento
State CA
Zip Code 95819
Land Use Resid. Single Family
Land Size 0.168 acres
Appraised Value $420130
Assessed Value $420130
Legal Description Sac:00501110170000

http://reach150.com/solarcity-northern-california/review/62015/jonathan-ball


Jonathan Ball
Field Energy Consultant SolarCity Northern California
Sacramento, CA

Recommendations

Be the first to leave a recommendation for Jonathan Ball.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 20:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Every single negative story about Trump
Rot in HELL, little man Ball!

YOU are little man Ball, let's get folks up to speed on who and what YOU
are!

LITTLE MAN BALL-----

PARK THAT JETTA!!!

PICK THOSE ORANGES!!!

SELL THOSE SOLAR PANELS!!!


https://www.arivify.com/property/search/Lj5tUOUy7

Owner Name Jonathan Ball
Address 5327 Shepard Ave
City Sacramento
State CA
Zip Code 95819
Land Use Resid. Single Family
Land Size 0.168 acres
Appraised Value $420130
Assessed Value $420130
Legal Description Sac:00501110170000

http://reach150.com/solarcity-northern-california/review/62015/jonathan-ball


Jonathan Ball
Field Energy Consultant SolarCity Northern California
Sacramento, CA

Recommendations

Be the first to leave a recommendation for Jonathan Ball.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 21:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Not "almost" always - always, full stop.
YOU are Jonathan 'little man' Ball, now let's get folks up to speed on
who and what YOU really are!

LITTLE MAN BALL-----

PARK THAT JETTA!!!

PICK THOSE ORANGES!!!

SELL THOSE SOLAR PANELS!!!


https://www.arivify.com/property/search/Lj5tUOUy7

Owner Name Jonathan Ball
Address 5327 Shepard Ave
City Sacramento
State CA
Zip Code 95819
Land Use Resid. Single Family
Land Size 0.168 acres
Appraised Value $420130
Assessed Value $420130
Legal Description Sac:00501110170000

http://reach150.com/solarcity-northern-california/review/62015/jonathan-ball


Jonathan Ball
Field Energy Consultant SolarCity Northern California
Sacramento, CA

Recommendations

Be the first to leave a recommendation for Jonathan Ball.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 21:31:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Now you're interfering with Rudy's view of "reality".
Rudy's view of reality seems to change as much as the wind.
That is because little man Ball has NO valid or consistent political
stances.

Check his archive.

He's taken both sides of nearly every current event for years now.

He's a troll, an arguebot - he LIVES to troll, period.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 21:35:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If you want to get the sense of what goes on in real newsrooms, see
how many sources they quote for a serious story. The Times, WaPo, NBC,
and the rest of the upper echelon of the MSM will have multiple
sources. They almost never write a story without them, and if they do,
they make it clear that it's from one source and unconfirmed.
What you say might be true
Uh...Jayson Blair anyone?

The NYT school of creative reporting...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-news-stories-from-the-mainstream-media/


Jayson Blair: New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was investigated by
his newspaper in 2003 and accused of inventing numerous reports. He was
especially prone to inventing news reports supposedly filed from other
cities, while he was in fact working from his apartment in Brooklyn.
However, the scandal that ultimately prompted his resignation involved
accusations of plagiarism in a story he filed about the family of a
soldier missing in Iraq.

The NYT conceded that Blair’s career of fabulism was a “profound
betrayal of trust, and a low point in the 152-year history of the
newspaper.”
Nomen Nescio
2018-01-28 23:35:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.breitfart.com
Polar Vortex
2018-01-28 23:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.breitfart.com
Fuck off Dizum whore!

You are a far left TRAITOR to this nation.
Polar Vortex
2018-01-28 22:31:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
They're desperately
trying to undermine the press that is beating up the lies coming from
the current administration.
You're fucking INSANE!

The lamestream press is totally corrupted, waging war on Trump, not to
be trusted ever again.

You must be the most gullible POS on the planet!

Did you not grasp what happened to an industry that went all-in on
libitardia?


http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/5369

THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is
over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought
the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53
percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the
Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent
conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be
self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996,
another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61
percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to
be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's
politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to
call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the
Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of
self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And
the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1
or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond
dispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers
are, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for a
moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered
liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be
getting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree
with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility
if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And I
could go on.

The Pew poll also found that 55 percent of national journalists believe
that Bush should be treated more critically by the press than he has
been. They think he's gotten off too easy, despite empirical evidence of
media Bush bashing. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examined
the coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows and
found only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks after
September 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75
percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates were
positive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative.

With the evidence of liberal dominance so overwhelming, a leading press
critic is now calling for more ideological diversity in the media. Tom
Rosenstiel, who helped design the Pew poll and who runs the Project for
Excellence in Journalism, says it's necessary not to think just of
diversity that makes newsrooms "look like America," but to create a
press corps that "thinks like America."
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
2018-01-28 23:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Polar Vortex
They're desperately
trying to undermine the press that is beating up the lies coming from
the current administration.
You're fucking INSANE!
The lamestream press is totally corrupted, waging war on Trump, not to
be trusted ever again.
Bullshit. The Trump channel, AKA fox 'news', is the most corrupt and
biased of them all.
Polar Vortex
2018-01-28 23:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anonymous Remailer (austria)
Post by Polar Vortex
They're desperately
trying to undermine the press that is beating up the lies coming from
the current administration.
You're fucking INSANE!
The lamestream press is totally corrupted, waging war on Trump, not to
be trusted ever again.
Bullshit.
Fuck off Dizum whore!

You are a far left TRAITOR to this nation.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 23:16:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You can't point to a single lie by a mainstream news source.
STFU little man Jonathan Ball, you worthless traitorous dwarfish worm!


I think it's time for shitbag tRudey/Jonathan Ball to be TOS'd.

https://www.newshosting.com/terms-of-service.php

Terms of Use
NewsHosting Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Agreement

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS IN ORDER TO PROCEED

NewsHosting has a zero-tolerance SPAM policy.

SPAM. NEWSHOSTING ENFORCES A ZERO-TOLERANCE SPAM POLICY REGARDING OUR
USERS POSTS TO USENET THROUGH OUR NETWORK. IT IS THE SOLE DISCRETION OF
NEWSHOSTING TO DETERMINE IF A USER'S POSTS ARE CONSIDERED SPAM. A
DEFINITION OF SPAM CAN BE FOUND AT http://spam.abuse.net. IF NEWSHOSTING
HAS DETERMINED THAT A USER HAS POSTED 1 OR MORE ARTICLES OF SPAM, THAT
USER WILL BE CHARGED A $500 PER HOUR CLEAN-UP FEE AND THE USER'S ACCOUNT
WILL BE CANCELED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO REFUNDS AND ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS
WILL BE MADE BY NEWSHOSTING TO PREVENT THE USER FROM USING OUR NETWORK
ANYTIME THEREAFTER.

CONTENT. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT USE THE SYSTEM TO POST OR TRANSMIT ANY
ILLEGAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY TRANSMISSIONS THAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY, OR
OTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW OR
REGULATION.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT ACCESS. NEWSHOSTING MAY DENY CUSTOMER ACCESS TO ALL OR
PART OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTICE IF CUSTOMER ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT OR
ACTIVITIES THAT NEWSHOSTING IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES VIOLATES ANY
OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF NEWSHOSTING DENIES
CUSTOMER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE CUSTOMER
SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT (1) TO ACCESS THROUGH NEWSHOSTING ANY MATERIALS
STORED ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET, (2) TO OBTAIN ANY
CREDIT(S) OTHERWISE DUE TO CUSTOMER, AND SUCH CREDIT(S) WILL BE
FORFEITED, (3) TO ACCESS THIRD PARTY SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR
INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET THROUGH NEWSHOSTING,
AND NEWSHOSTING SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY ANY THIRD-PARTY
PROVIDERS OF SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR INFORMATION NOR ANY RESPONSIBILITY
FOR ANY CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM LACK OF NOTIFICATION OR RESTRICTION
OF CUSTOMER'S ACCESS. SECURITY. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR
USENET, AND TO CERTAIN ONLINE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES THE USE OF
IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, PASSWORDS, CHARGE OR DEBIT ACCOUNTS OR OTHER
INDIVIDUALIZED NONPUBLIC INFORMATION ("PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION"). CUSTOMER
SHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SYSTEM OR
OF ANY PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION, AND SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT TO NEWSHOSTING
ANY SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED USE OR OTHER BREACH OF SECURITY. CUSTOMER
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ITS IDENTIFICATION
NUMBERS OR PASSWORDS UNTIL NEWSHOSTING RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF A
BREACH OF SECURITY AND A REQUEST TO BLOCK FURTHER ACCESS FOR SUCH
NUMBERS AND PASSWORDS. NEWSHOSTING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF CHARGE, DEBIT OR OTHER CREDIT ACCOUNTS.

Contact details:
Should you have any questions, complaints or comments about our Terms
after reading them, please do not hesitate to contact us by letter or
e-mail (***@newshosting.com).

Address details:
Newshosting
Sandhraun EHF
Sudurlandsbraut 18
Reykjavik 108 Iceland

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in
an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose
to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious
products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam costs
the sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by the
recipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects on
Internet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20
or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users have
found that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often not
relevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers",
people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give their
address away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups by
overwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevant
posts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of system
administrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Email
spam lists are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealing
Internet mailing lists, or searching the Web for addresses. Email spams
typically cost users money out-of-pocket to receive. Many people -
anyone with measured phone service - read or receive their mail while
the meter is running, so to speak. Spam costs them additional money. On
top of that, it costs money for ISPs and online services to transmit
spam, and these costs are transmitted directly to subscribers.

One particularly nasty variant of email spam is sending spam to mailing
lists (public or private email discussion forums.) Because many mailing
lists limit activity to their subscribers, spammers will use automated
tools to subscribe to as many mailing lists as possible, so that they
can grab the lists of addresses, or use the mailing list as a direct
target for their attacks.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 23:18:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Your writing badly needs editing.
STFU little man Jonathan Ball, you worthless traitorous dwarfish worm!


I think it's time for shitbag tRudey/Jonathan Ball to be TOS'd.

https://www.newshosting.com/terms-of-service.php

Terms of Use
NewsHosting Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Agreement

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS IN ORDER TO PROCEED

NewsHosting has a zero-tolerance SPAM policy.

SPAM. NEWSHOSTING ENFORCES A ZERO-TOLERANCE SPAM POLICY REGARDING OUR
USERS POSTS TO USENET THROUGH OUR NETWORK. IT IS THE SOLE DISCRETION OF
NEWSHOSTING TO DETERMINE IF A USER'S POSTS ARE CONSIDERED SPAM. A
DEFINITION OF SPAM CAN BE FOUND AT http://spam.abuse.net. IF NEWSHOSTING
HAS DETERMINED THAT A USER HAS POSTED 1 OR MORE ARTICLES OF SPAM, THAT
USER WILL BE CHARGED A $500 PER HOUR CLEAN-UP FEE AND THE USER'S ACCOUNT
WILL BE CANCELED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO REFUNDS AND ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS
WILL BE MADE BY NEWSHOSTING TO PREVENT THE USER FROM USING OUR NETWORK
ANYTIME THEREAFTER.

CONTENT. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT USE THE SYSTEM TO POST OR TRANSMIT ANY
ILLEGAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY TRANSMISSIONS THAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY, OR
OTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW OR
REGULATION.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT ACCESS. NEWSHOSTING MAY DENY CUSTOMER ACCESS TO ALL OR
PART OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTICE IF CUSTOMER ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT OR
ACTIVITIES THAT NEWSHOSTING IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES VIOLATES ANY
OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF NEWSHOSTING DENIES
CUSTOMER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE CUSTOMER
SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT (1) TO ACCESS THROUGH NEWSHOSTING ANY MATERIALS
STORED ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET, (2) TO OBTAIN ANY
CREDIT(S) OTHERWISE DUE TO CUSTOMER, AND SUCH CREDIT(S) WILL BE
FORFEITED, (3) TO ACCESS THIRD PARTY SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR
INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET THROUGH NEWSHOSTING,
AND NEWSHOSTING SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY ANY THIRD-PARTY
PROVIDERS OF SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR INFORMATION NOR ANY RESPONSIBILITY
FOR ANY CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM LACK OF NOTIFICATION OR RESTRICTION
OF CUSTOMER'S ACCESS. SECURITY. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR
USENET, AND TO CERTAIN ONLINE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES THE USE OF
IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, PASSWORDS, CHARGE OR DEBIT ACCOUNTS OR OTHER
INDIVIDUALIZED NONPUBLIC INFORMATION ("PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION"). CUSTOMER
SHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SYSTEM OR
OF ANY PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION, AND SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT TO NEWSHOSTING
ANY SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED USE OR OTHER BREACH OF SECURITY. CUSTOMER
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ITS IDENTIFICATION
NUMBERS OR PASSWORDS UNTIL NEWSHOSTING RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF A
BREACH OF SECURITY AND A REQUEST TO BLOCK FURTHER ACCESS FOR SUCH
NUMBERS AND PASSWORDS. NEWSHOSTING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF CHARGE, DEBIT OR OTHER CREDIT ACCOUNTS.

Contact details:
Should you have any questions, complaints or comments about our Terms
after reading them, please do not hesitate to contact us by letter or
e-mail (***@newshosting.com).

Address details:
Newshosting
Sandhraun EHF
Sudurlandsbraut 18
Reykjavik 108 Iceland

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in
an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose
to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious
products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam costs
the sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by the
recipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects on
Internet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20
or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users have
found that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often not
relevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers",
people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give their
address away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups by
overwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevant
posts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of system
administrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Email
spam lists are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealing
Internet mailing lists, or searching the Web for addresses. Email spams
typically cost users money out-of-pocket to receive. Many people -
anyone with measured phone service - read or receive their mail while
the meter is running, so to speak. Spam costs them additional money. On
top of that, it costs money for ISPs and online services to transmit
spam, and these costs are transmitted directly to subscribers.

One particularly nasty variant of email spam is sending spam to mailing
lists (public or private email discussion forums.) Because many mailing
lists limit activity to their subscribers, spammers will use automated
tools to subscribe to as many mailing lists as possible, so that they
can grab the lists of addresses, or use the mailing list as a direct
target for their attacks.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-28 23:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You admit it.
STFU little man Jonathan Ball, you worthless traitorous dwarfish worm!


I think it's time for shitbag tRudey/Jonathan Ball to be TOS'd.

https://www.newshosting.com/terms-of-service.php

Terms of Use
NewsHosting Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Agreement

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS IN ORDER TO PROCEED

NewsHosting has a zero-tolerance SPAM policy.

SPAM. NEWSHOSTING ENFORCES A ZERO-TOLERANCE SPAM POLICY REGARDING OUR
USERS POSTS TO USENET THROUGH OUR NETWORK. IT IS THE SOLE DISCRETION OF
NEWSHOSTING TO DETERMINE IF A USER'S POSTS ARE CONSIDERED SPAM. A
DEFINITION OF SPAM CAN BE FOUND AT http://spam.abuse.net. IF NEWSHOSTING
HAS DETERMINED THAT A USER HAS POSTED 1 OR MORE ARTICLES OF SPAM, THAT
USER WILL BE CHARGED A $500 PER HOUR CLEAN-UP FEE AND THE USER'S ACCOUNT
WILL BE CANCELED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO REFUNDS AND ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS
WILL BE MADE BY NEWSHOSTING TO PREVENT THE USER FROM USING OUR NETWORK
ANYTIME THEREAFTER.

CONTENT. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT USE THE SYSTEM TO POST OR TRANSMIT ANY
ILLEGAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY TRANSMISSIONS THAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY, OR
OTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW OR
REGULATION.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT ACCESS. NEWSHOSTING MAY DENY CUSTOMER ACCESS TO ALL OR
PART OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTICE IF CUSTOMER ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT OR
ACTIVITIES THAT NEWSHOSTING IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES VIOLATES ANY
OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF NEWSHOSTING DENIES
CUSTOMER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE CUSTOMER
SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT (1) TO ACCESS THROUGH NEWSHOSTING ANY MATERIALS
STORED ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET, (2) TO OBTAIN ANY
CREDIT(S) OTHERWISE DUE TO CUSTOMER, AND SUCH CREDIT(S) WILL BE
FORFEITED, (3) TO ACCESS THIRD PARTY SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR
INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET THROUGH NEWSHOSTING,
AND NEWSHOSTING SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY ANY THIRD-PARTY
PROVIDERS OF SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR INFORMATION NOR ANY RESPONSIBILITY
FOR ANY CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM LACK OF NOTIFICATION OR RESTRICTION
OF CUSTOMER'S ACCESS. SECURITY. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR
USENET, AND TO CERTAIN ONLINE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES THE USE OF
IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, PASSWORDS, CHARGE OR DEBIT ACCOUNTS OR OTHER
INDIVIDUALIZED NONPUBLIC INFORMATION ("PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION"). CUSTOMER
SHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SYSTEM OR
OF ANY PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION, AND SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT TO NEWSHOSTING
ANY SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED USE OR OTHER BREACH OF SECURITY. CUSTOMER
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ITS IDENTIFICATION
NUMBERS OR PASSWORDS UNTIL NEWSHOSTING RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF A
BREACH OF SECURITY AND A REQUEST TO BLOCK FURTHER ACCESS FOR SUCH
NUMBERS AND PASSWORDS. NEWSHOSTING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF CHARGE, DEBIT OR OTHER CREDIT ACCOUNTS.

Contact details:
Should you have any questions, complaints or comments about our Terms
after reading them, please do not hesitate to contact us by letter or
e-mail (***@newshosting.com).

Address details:
Newshosting
Sandhraun EHF
Sudurlandsbraut 18
Reykjavik 108 Iceland

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in
an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose
to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious
products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam costs
the sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by the
recipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects on
Internet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20
or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users have
found that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often not
relevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers",
people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give their
address away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups by
overwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevant
posts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of system
administrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Email
spam lists are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealing
Internet mailing lists, or searching the Web for addresses. Email spams
typically cost users money out-of-pocket to receive. Many people -
anyone with measured phone service - read or receive their mail while
the meter is running, so to speak. Spam costs them additional money. On
top of that, it costs money for ISPs and online services to transmit
spam, and these costs are transmitted directly to subscribers.

One particularly nasty variant of email spam is sending spam to mailing
lists (public or private email discussion forums.) Because many mailing
lists limit activity to their subscribers, spammers will use automated
tools to subscribe to as many mailing lists as possible, so that they
can grab the lists of addresses, or use the mailing list as a direct
target for their attacks.
Polar Vortex
2018-01-28 23:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So, there's nothing to get excited about here. They're desperately
trying to undermine the press that is beating up the lies coming from
the current administration. They really have no choice. They have to
either cook up an "alternative fact" narrative, or cry.
The MSM all seem to be dying.... Maybe they needed to start telling the
truth. Are they too ignorant to see their own folly?
a.) yes.
Clave
2018-01-29 17:17:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here's what's actually happening to the mainstream media. As I said,
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU LYING LEAST COAST ASSHAT!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/5369

Liberal Media Evidence
A new poll by the Pew Center proves that the media is as liberal as
ever. When will "diversity" mean more conservatives?

11:00 PM, May 27, 2004 | By Fred Barnes


THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is
over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought
the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53
percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the
Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent
conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be
self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996,
another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61
percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to
be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's
politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to
call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the
Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of
self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And
the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1
or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond
dispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers
are, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for a
moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered
liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be
getting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree
with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility
if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And I
could go on.

The Pew poll also found that 55 percent of national journalists believe
that Bush should be treated more critically by the press than he has
been. They think he's gotten off too easy, despite empirical evidence of
media Bush bashing. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examined
the coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows and
found only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks after
September 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75
percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates were
positive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative.

With the evidence of liberal dominance so overwhelming, a leading press
critic is now calling for more ideological diversity in the media. Tom
Rosenstiel, who helped design the Pew poll and who runs the Project for
Excellence in Journalism, says it's necessary not to think just of
diversity that makes newsrooms "look like America," but to create a
press corps that "thinks like America."

In truth, the effort to hire more minorities and women has had the
effect of making the media more liberal. Both these groups tend to have
liberal politics, and this is accentuated by the fact that many of the
women recruited into journalism are young and single, precisely those
with the most liberal views. "By diversifying the profession in one
way," Rosenstiel says, "they were making it more homogenous in another."

Rosenstiel insists it would be quite possible for news organizations to
find journalists with conservative views to hire. "There are ways to
change the culture of the newsroom," he says. Media recruiters can turn
to different colleges than the ones where they've traditionally
recruited. They can look to different parts of the country. And they can
seek assistance from organizations that already train young
conservatives for careers in journalism.
Clave
2018-01-29 17:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That's accurate reporting.
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU LYING LEAST COAST ASSHAT!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/5369

Liberal Media Evidence
A new poll by the Pew Center proves that the media is as liberal as
ever. When will "diversity" mean more conservatives?

11:00 PM, May 27, 2004 | By Fred Barnes


THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is
over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought
the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53
percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the
Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent
conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be
self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996,
another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61
percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to
be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's
politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to
call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the
Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of
self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And
the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1
or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond
dispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers
are, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for a
moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered
liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be
getting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree
with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility
if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And I
could go on.

The Pew poll also found that 55 percent of national journalists believe
that Bush should be treated more critically by the press than he has
been. They think he's gotten off too easy, despite empirical evidence of
media Bush bashing. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examined
the coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows and
found only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks after
September 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75
percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates were
positive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative.

With the evidence of liberal dominance so overwhelming, a leading press
critic is now calling for more ideological diversity in the media. Tom
Rosenstiel, who helped design the Pew poll and who runs the Project for
Excellence in Journalism, says it's necessary not to think just of
diversity that makes newsrooms "look like America," but to create a
press corps that "thinks like America."

In truth, the effort to hire more minorities and women has had the
effect of making the media more liberal. Both these groups tend to have
liberal politics, and this is accentuated by the fact that many of the
women recruited into journalism are young and single, precisely those
with the most liberal views. "By diversifying the profession in one
way," Rosenstiel says, "they were making it more homogenous in another."

Rosenstiel insists it would be quite possible for news organizations to
find journalists with conservative views to hire. "There are ways to
change the culture of the newsroom," he says. Media recruiters can turn
to different colleges than the ones where they've traditionally
recruited. They can look to different parts of the country. And they can
seek assistance from organizations that already train young
conservatives for careers in journalism.
Polar Vortex
2018-01-30 15:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Journalistic standards today exceed
anything we had in the past.
ABSOLUTE FAKE NEWS BULLSHIT!

Can you say Jayson Blair, Cunt in a dress?

You fucking leftard LIAR!
Polar Vortex
2018-01-30 15:47:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I pay for WSJ, too, and The Economist.
The Economist is a purely globalist indoctrination manual, you absurdly
ill-informed leftarded useful idiot!

How you found your way to the WSJ is a true mystery, Cunt in a dress.
Polar Vortex
2018-01-30 15:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
They told the story that four people reported he tried to fire
Mueller. The Times didn't say they*saw* it happen themselves.
And then WaPo and others confirmed it from*their* sources.
Iow...HEARSAY, fake rumor mill "news".

You brainwashed leftarded shitbag!
Polar Vortex
2018-01-30 15:54:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It's impossible not to make errors. What makes a news source
untrustworthy is if they don't print corrections. The MSM print
corrections.
So a lie told in the famously short 24/7 news cycle is OK as long as you
admit it when caught?

That might have worked with mommy when you got caught stealing cookies
but it it TOXIC to a free society, you miserable excuse-making leftarded
traitor to America!
Polar Vortex
2018-01-30 15:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.snopes.
Snopes is leftarded FAKE NEWS!

And the guy that runs it cheated on his wife!

Why are you so gullible, Cunt in a dress?
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-30 16:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
They never back off
STFU little man Jonathan Ball, you worthless traitorous dwarfish worm!


I think it's time for shitbag tRudey/Jonathan Ball to be TOS'd.

https://www.newshosting.com/terms-of-service.php

Terms of Use
NewsHosting Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Agreement

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS IN ORDER TO PROCEED

NewsHosting has a zero-tolerance SPAM policy.

SPAM. NEWSHOSTING ENFORCES A ZERO-TOLERANCE SPAM POLICY REGARDING OUR
USERS POSTS TO USENET THROUGH OUR NETWORK. IT IS THE SOLE DISCRETION OF
NEWSHOSTING TO DETERMINE IF A USER'S POSTS ARE CONSIDERED SPAM. A
DEFINITION OF SPAM CAN BE FOUND AT http://spam.abuse.net. IF NEWSHOSTING
HAS DETERMINED THAT A USER HAS POSTED 1 OR MORE ARTICLES OF SPAM, THAT
USER WILL BE CHARGED A $500 PER HOUR CLEAN-UP FEE AND THE USER'S ACCOUNT
WILL BE CANCELED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO REFUNDS AND ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS
WILL BE MADE BY NEWSHOSTING TO PREVENT THE USER FROM USING OUR NETWORK
ANYTIME THEREAFTER.

CONTENT. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT USE THE SYSTEM TO POST OR TRANSMIT ANY
ILLEGAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY TRANSMISSIONS THAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY, OR
OTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW OR
REGULATION.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT ACCESS. NEWSHOSTING MAY DENY CUSTOMER ACCESS TO ALL OR
PART OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTICE IF CUSTOMER ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT OR
ACTIVITIES THAT NEWSHOSTING IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES VIOLATES ANY
OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF NEWSHOSTING DENIES
CUSTOMER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE CUSTOMER
SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT (1) TO ACCESS THROUGH NEWSHOSTING ANY MATERIALS
STORED ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET, (2) TO OBTAIN ANY
CREDIT(S) OTHERWISE DUE TO CUSTOMER, AND SUCH CREDIT(S) WILL BE
FORFEITED, (3) TO ACCESS THIRD PARTY SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR
INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET THROUGH NEWSHOSTING,
AND NEWSHOSTING SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY ANY THIRD-PARTY
PROVIDERS OF SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR INFORMATION NOR ANY RESPONSIBILITY
FOR ANY CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM LACK OF NOTIFICATION OR RESTRICTION
OF CUSTOMER'S ACCESS. SECURITY. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR
USENET, AND TO CERTAIN ONLINE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES THE USE OF
IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, PASSWORDS, CHARGE OR DEBIT ACCOUNTS OR OTHER
INDIVIDUALIZED NONPUBLIC INFORMATION ("PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION"). CUSTOMER
SHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SYSTEM OR
OF ANY PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION, AND SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT TO NEWSHOSTING
ANY SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED USE OR OTHER BREACH OF SECURITY. CUSTOMER
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ITS IDENTIFICATION
NUMBERS OR PASSWORDS UNTIL NEWSHOSTING RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF A
BREACH OF SECURITY AND A REQUEST TO BLOCK FURTHER ACCESS FOR SUCH
NUMBERS AND PASSWORDS. NEWSHOSTING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF CHARGE, DEBIT OR OTHER CREDIT ACCOUNTS.

Contact details:
Should you have any questions, complaints or comments about our Terms
after reading them, please do not hesitate to contact us by letter or
e-mail (***@newshosting.com).

Address details:
Newshosting
Sandhraun EHF
Sudurlandsbraut 18
Reykjavik 108 Iceland

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in
an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose
to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious
products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam costs
the sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by the
recipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects on
Internet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20
or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users have
found that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often not
relevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers",
people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give their
address away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups by
overwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevant
posts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of system
administrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Email
spam lists are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealing
Internet mailing lists, or searching the Web for addresses. Email spams
typically cost users money out-of-pocket to receive. Many people -
anyone with measured phone service - read or receive their mail while
the meter is running, so to speak. Spam costs them additional money. On
top of that, it costs money for ISPs and online services to transmit
spam, and these costs are transmitted directly to subscribers.

One particularly nasty variant of email spam is sending spam to mailing
lists (public or private email discussion forums.) Because many mailing
lists limit activity to their subscribers, spammers will use automated
tools to subscribe to as many mailing lists as possible, so that they
can grab the lists of addresses, or use the mailing list as a direct
target for their attacks.
Polar Vortex
2018-01-30 19:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I read from any source that I see....
Then you don't get 1/100th of what they publish.
How do you arrive at that leap of logic?

And why would anyone need to see 100% of what anyone publishes in the
first place?
You make your
judgements based on a cherry-picked selection of stories,
As do YOU, ASSHOLE!
and it's
someone else who's picking cherries for you.
Pot/kettle, brainwashed cunt in a dress...
My views aren't manipulated by what I can afford, I find WSJ in news
print and for free and I find other news from paid sources, often
they're less informing than the commercial paid sources. News isn't
always time sensitive...
Your views are manipulated by whoever decides you should be allowed to
read it.
And yours aren't?

Pot/kettle, brainwashed cunt in a dress...
Polar Vortex
2018-01-30 19:23:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:53:29 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:12:24 -0500, Ed Huntress
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:16:10 -0500, Ed Huntress
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 10:10:22 -0500, Ed Huntress
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:38:17 -0500, Ed Huntress
President Trump on Friday denied a New York Times report that claims he
tried to fire special counsel Robert Mueller in June.
When asked about the story by reporters at the World Economic Forum in
Davos, Switzerland, Trump said: “Fake news, folks, fake news.”
That's the absolutely irrefutable truth that Trumpchev tried to fire Mr.
Mueller. Trumpchev calls *every* factual story that puts a bad harsh
light on him "fake news."
When Trumpchev calls anything "fake news", you know it is rock-solid
accurate news.
I wonder how many people except the far left even listen to the likes
of CNN or the Post anymore.
CNN and the Post are just two entries in the center-to-left-of-center
news. Taken together, the Washington Post and the NYT are better read
than any paper in the United States. They beat USA Today, whose
circulation figures are a joke, because they're free in nearly every
hotel and motel in the US. But they're centerish, anyway.
As for CNN, add in NBC and MSNBC. Together, they stomp the hell out of
Fox News.
The issue here is that most quality news outlets in the US are
center/left-of-center. They overwhelm the readership and viewership of
the right-wing news.
How many times has their breaking story
been Bullshit?
Very rarely. They're the most accurate news organizations in the
world.
LOL
No such thing anymore.
Unless you're a news and history sponge who reads and watches all
sides (I am), you probably have no way to evaluate that, Matt.
I watch much news but admit I stay away from the talk shows except
Real Time and that is for entertainment.
I'm a moderate so look for flaws in and on both sides. Have noticed
people on the far Left or Right actually believe the bullshit when in
plain sight or without evidence.
Right. That's generally true.
If you want to get the sense of what goes on in real newsrooms, see
how many sources they quote for a serious story. The Times, WaPo, NBC,
and the rest of the upper echelon of the MSM will have multiple
sources. They almost never write a story without them, and if they do,
they make it clear that it's from one source and unconfirmed.
What you say might be true but look at the subject line of this very
post. " Denies Trying To Fire" and you see a deception. That is the
way of the News media anymore.
What deception? That was the story -- that Trump tried to fire Mueller
-- and now *this* story is about Trump's denial of that story.
That's accurate reporting.
The to you the words "considered firing" and "tried to fire" have the
same meaning.
Not at all.
You don't seem to be following this. The paper reports that sources
tell them that Trump tried to fire Mueller. Trump denies it's true;
the paper reports that.
Both stories are accurate.
The first story was reported first by the NYT. Here's their lede
"President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller
III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation,
according to four people told of the matter..."
They told the story that four people reported he tried to fire
Mueller. The Times didn't say they *saw* it happen themselves.
And then WaPo and others confirmed it from *their* sources.
I heard people say Hillary is a criminal....
But you're incapable of judging a news source.
Bullshit lie!
They're not.
Izzat why they bought the fictional youtube video/Benghazi stinkbait?

You moronic cunt in a dress!
Polar Vortex
2018-01-30 19:25:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The rightards on Usenet these days appear
to be the bottom of the barrel,
You are a severely delusional brainwashed leftarded creep.

FUCK OFF ASSHOLE.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-01-30 20:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I've long employed the term "willful stupidity".
You've long portrayed it little man Ball.
Polar Vortex
2018-01-31 00:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
snip
I heard people say Hillary is a criminal....
She is anonymous sources say so.
and you'll believe these anonymous sources but not others, how
interesting.
If I believe one that you give, I have to believe all that I hear.
It is just an interesting attitude. One believes anonymous sources that
you agree with but deride the ones you don't as 'anonymous sources'
Why don't you fuck off back to your own Auztarded newsgroups and leave
Americans alone.
Polar Vortex
2018-02-01 00:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
the Washington Post is
not yellow journalism..
Bullshit LIE!

Yes it IS.

https://www.catholicleague.org/yellow-journalism-washington-post-and-new-york-times/

YELLOW JOURNALISM: WASHINGTON POST AND NEW YORK TIMES

Catholic League president Bill Donohue goes after the Washington Post
and the New York Times for yellow journalism:

On November 24, John Kelly of the Washington Post distorted what I said
last year about the American Humanist Association, and today Ian Urbina
of the New York Times compounds the problem by plagiarizing from Kelly.

Kelly wrote a piece about the American Humanist Association’s new
holiday ad promoting atheism. In referencing a previous campaign, he
said it received “a bunch of publicity.” Then he wrote the following:
“The head of the Catholic League lumped secular humanists in with such
figures as Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler.”

Here is what Urbina wrote today about the same subject: “The head of the
Catholic League linked secular humanists to figures like Hitler and the
serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.”

On November 12 last year, I debated Jesse Galef of the American Humanist
Association on the Fox News Network. After Galef spoke, host Heather
Nauret said the following: “All right. You know, Bill, they have their
First Amendment rights. They’ve got to say what they want.” Here is my
reply: “Right. That’s right. They shouldn’t be profoundly ignorant,
though. Sociology 101 says that morality has always been grounded in
religion. They are trying to say, ‘No, it is grounded in individuals.’
Well, Jeffrey Dahmer had a conscience, too, Heather. And you know what?
He destroyed his victims and then ate them. We saw what happened with
militant secularism in the 20th century. Over 150 million dead because
of this man’s philosophy—Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao and Stalin.”

To say, as Kelly and Urbina did, that I made my comment about the
American Humanist Association’s silly campaign—and not the philosophy of
militant secularism—is a gross distortion. And by the way, can’t they do
their own research at the Times?

https://www.shiftfrequency.com/washington-post-yellow-journalism/

The real useful-idiot shills are the editors and hacks paid by the
Washington Post, who are busy penning articles such as “Why the
electoral college should choose Hillary Clinton”. Isn’t this
fundamentally a call to over-ride the Constitutional framework of the
republic’s democracy?

In other words, the ruling elite’s candidate lost, so let’s subvert
democracy to “right this terrible wrong” that was wrought by fed-up
debt-serfs.

Substitution is a useful technique to reveal propaganda: if Trump had
lost by a thin margin, would the The Washington Post publish an article
“Why the electoral college should choose Donald Trump”?

https://www.westernjournal.com/yellow-journalism-is-alive-and-well/

What is yellow journalism?

The term yellow journalism originated with comments on Hogan’s Alley and
its main character “the Yellow Kid”, which was created by cartoonist
Richard Outcault for the publisher Pulitzer in the New York World. In
the late 1890’s Pulitzer was in a subscription war with William Randolph
Hearst and the New York Journal. Both Pulitzer and Hearst wanted to
engage New York’s readers.

Advertisement – story continues below

The dictionary defines the term yellow journalism as deliberate
distortion or exaggeration to fuel speculation with the intent of
increasing circulation. It is not anything resembling accurate news
reporting. It insinuates the opinions of the publishers or authors into
what is reported as news with the intent of fueling speculation at the
expense of the truth. In the late nineteenth century it was used to fuel
anti-Spanish sentiment and contributed to goading the United States into
the Spanish American War.

Yellow Journalism has been used in every period of history since the
term was coined. Every time there is a major event in our history the
press has always lent its own personal bent to the story. In many
instances the press has published outrageous headlines with little or no
sources cited for the story line. It is a technique that works with the
average reader, especially today. Our time is getting more and more
challenged. When we look for something, we zero in on the headline and
if it shocks or tantalizes us we read the story. Not all examples of
yellow journalism are bad. Some newspapers or digital media stick to the
facts and investigate their sources. The technique they use to present
the story or headline can be similar.

TRENDING: Mainstream Media Figures Celebrate GOP Train Crash in
Disgusting Tweets

Today there are members of the press who think they should make the
story instead of reporting it. The unsuspecting public is exposed to all
types of news reporting. Many people associate the media with what it
was shortly after World War II and the Vietnam War. The public is
divided evenly on whether to believe what they read or hear in the
newspapers, digital media or airwaves. The media for the most part is
controlled by liberal leaning financiers, and this is reflected in the
reporting and labeling of the subject of the story. Liberals tend to
side with the secular point of view and to expound upon the emotions
generated by different people and entities. This makes the job of the
discerning reader that much more difficult. They have to delve deep into
each article to arrive at the truth if the truth is there.

The average person is influenced by what they believe is fair. If the
news media appeals to the reader’s sense of fairness, that favors the
sensibilities of the average reader. If the articles are timed properly
and are imbedded with certain characteristics the news media can help
determine the outcome of political events. This was demonstrated in the
2008 election. The ratio of favorable to negative for Obama was almost
80% to 10%, while the ratio for McCain was almost the opposite 20%
favorable to 70% negatives. The news media invested themselves in the
election of Obama and is still invested today in his continuing for 4
more years. If the pendulum swings in the opposite direction there is
almost nothing the media can do to survive in its present form. A change
of power at the top and consequent revamp of the news media could bode
well for the next generation. Only time will tell if yellow journalism
and its negative effects will rear its ugly head in the future.
Polar Vortex
2018-02-01 00:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You're foresaking your responsibility as a citizen of a republican
democracy. The press, as it works, is one of the essential components
of any such system.
Bullshit LIE!

Not any more:


https://www.catholicleague.org/yellow-journalism-washington-post-and-new-york-times/

YELLOW JOURNALISM: WASHINGTON POST AND NEW YORK TIMES

Catholic League president Bill Donohue goes after the Washington Post
and the New York Times for yellow journalism:

On November 24, John Kelly of the Washington Post distorted what I said
last year about the American Humanist Association, and today Ian Urbina
of the New York Times compounds the problem by plagiarizing from Kelly.

Kelly wrote a piece about the American Humanist Association’s new
holiday ad promoting atheism. In referencing a previous campaign, he
said it received “a bunch of publicity.” Then he wrote the following:
“The head of the Catholic League lumped secular humanists in with such
figures as Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler.”

Here is what Urbina wrote today about the same subject: “The head of the
Catholic League linked secular humanists to figures like Hitler and the
serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.”

On November 12 last year, I debated Jesse Galef of the American Humanist
Association on the Fox News Network. After Galef spoke, host Heather
Nauret said the following: “All right. You know, Bill, they have their
First Amendment rights. They’ve got to say what they want.” Here is my
reply: “Right. That’s right. They shouldn’t be profoundly ignorant,
though. Sociology 101 says that morality has always been grounded in
religion. They are trying to say, ‘No, it is grounded in individuals.’
Well, Jeffrey Dahmer had a conscience, too, Heather. And you know what?
He destroyed his victims and then ate them. We saw what happened with
militant secularism in the 20th century. Over 150 million dead because
of this man’s philosophy—Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao and Stalin.”

To say, as Kelly and Urbina did, that I made my comment about the
American Humanist Association’s silly campaign—and not the philosophy of
militant secularism—is a gross distortion. And by the way, can’t they do
their own research at the Times?

https://www.shiftfrequency.com/washington-post-yellow-journalism/

The real useful-idiot shills are the editors and hacks paid by the
Washington Post, who are busy penning articles such as “Why the
electoral college should choose Hillary Clinton”. Isn’t this
fundamentally a call to over-ride the Constitutional framework of the
republic’s democracy?

In other words, the ruling elite’s candidate lost, so let’s subvert
democracy to “right this terrible wrong” that was wrought by fed-up
debt-serfs.

Substitution is a useful technique to reveal propaganda: if Trump had
lost by a thin margin, would the The Washington Post publish an article
“Why the electoral college should choose Donald Trump”?

https://www.westernjournal.com/yellow-journalism-is-alive-and-well/

What is yellow journalism?

The term yellow journalism originated with comments on Hogan’s Alley and
its main character “the Yellow Kid”, which was created by cartoonist
Richard Outcault for the publisher Pulitzer in the New York World. In
the late 1890’s Pulitzer was in a subscription war with William Randolph
Hearst and the New York Journal. Both Pulitzer and Hearst wanted to
engage New York’s readers.

Advertisement – story continues below

The dictionary defines the term yellow journalism as deliberate
distortion or exaggeration to fuel speculation with the intent of
increasing circulation. It is not anything resembling accurate news
reporting. It insinuates the opinions of the publishers or authors into
what is reported as news with the intent of fueling speculation at the
expense of the truth. In the late nineteenth century it was used to fuel
anti-Spanish sentiment and contributed to goading the United States into
the Spanish American War.

Yellow Journalism has been used in every period of history since the
term was coined. Every time there is a major event in our history the
press has always lent its own personal bent to the story. In many
instances the press has published outrageous headlines with little or no
sources cited for the story line. It is a technique that works with the
average reader, especially today. Our time is getting more and more
challenged. When we look for something, we zero in on the headline and
if it shocks or tantalizes us we read the story. Not all examples of
yellow journalism are bad. Some newspapers or digital media stick to the
facts and investigate their sources. The technique they use to present
the story or headline can be similar.

TRENDING: Mainstream Media Figures Celebrate GOP Train Crash in
Disgusting Tweets

Today there are members of the press who think they should make the
story instead of reporting it. The unsuspecting public is exposed to all
types of news reporting. Many people associate the media with what it
was shortly after World War II and the Vietnam War. The public is
divided evenly on whether to believe what they read or hear in the
newspapers, digital media or airwaves. The media for the most part is
controlled by liberal leaning financiers, and this is reflected in the
reporting and labeling of the subject of the story. Liberals tend to
side with the secular point of view and to expound upon the emotions
generated by different people and entities. This makes the job of the
discerning reader that much more difficult. They have to delve deep into
each article to arrive at the truth if the truth is there.

The average person is influenced by what they believe is fair. If the
news media appeals to the reader’s sense of fairness, that favors the
sensibilities of the average reader. If the articles are timed properly
and are imbedded with certain characteristics the news media can help
determine the outcome of political events. This was demonstrated in the
2008 election. The ratio of favorable to negative for Obama was almost
80% to 10%, while the ratio for McCain was almost the opposite 20%
favorable to 70% negatives. The news media invested themselves in the
election of Obama and is still invested today in his continuing for 4
more years. If the pendulum swings in the opposite direction there is
almost nothing the media can do to survive in its present form. A change
of power at the top and consequent revamp of the news media could bode
well for the next generation. Only time will tell if yellow journalism
and its negative effects will rear its ugly head in the future.
Polar Vortex
2018-02-01 00:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Well that the Times mixes Yellow journalism with normal reporting
depending on the needs of the agenda.
Then you ought to save yourself some time and money and stop reading
it, Matt. You sure as hell aren't getting anything out of it.
Getting WHAT out of it- LIES?

Screw you cunt in a dress.

You least coast lackwit libtard.
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-02-01 17:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Look, you yeasty little cunt: you wouldn't be able to verify my time at
UCLA even if "Rudy Canoza" were my real name. You know you couldn't.
You wouldn't even know how to try.
I did, back when no one knew who you were and I tracked you down. I
even found out which two cellular phone companies you and your wife
used. d8-)
So yeah, Rudy has a bachelor's in econ from UCLA, and was in a PhD
program there for a few years.
This is really OLD news Crazy Eddy.

Will you be joining us at the Jolly Kone?
Jonathan Ball-Hendrie
2018-02-01 17:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
My bachelor's degree is not from UCLA.  The rest is accurate.
Your Solar City gig is done, little man Ball...
Polar Vortex
2018-02-01 17:37:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Trump and the porn star is vanishing.  They played a story sourced
from a tabloid rag to the hilt despite a public denial from the woman
in question.
The Times objectively reported on, and continues to objectively report
on the story which they didn't research.
Oh how CONVENIENT!

They are parsing rumor with pseudo-reportage under the guise of
"objectivity".

Do you know what a fucking CREEP you are to rationalize that?
Polar Vortex
2018-02-02 16:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Well, I have a dream. When I can't stand to watch the news anymore, I
lean back in my Barcalounger, turn off the TV and close my eyes, and
think about Mussolini hanging by his feet from the roof of an Esso gas
station.
Happy days!
You are a twisted, mentally deranged, old leftarded shitbag.

Die soon.
Editor
2018-02-02 21:33:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <p522m7$1nae$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Polar Vortex <***@damn.cold> wrote:
#FuckTrump
Leper
2018-02-02 22:46:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Editor
#FuckTrump
Damned///Those Queer Democrats just never let up.Now they want to give
President Trump HIV/AIDS.
--
Machiavelli wrote:It is necessary for the state to deal in lies and half
truths,
because people are made up of lies and half truths. Even Princes.' And
certainly, by definition all Ambassadors and politicians
Polar Vortex
2018-02-03 00:21:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Editor
#FuckTrump
Home Depot employees won't:


https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/25/home-depot-bonuses/1064718001/

Home Depot giving $1,000 bonuses to U.S. workers after Trump tax cut
Polar Vortex
2018-02-02 16:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The truth is that most of us have a good idea about how to judge, and
we know that publications like the NYT and WP live or die on
maintaining their reputation for integrity. And they've lived, because
they do have integrity.
Two words:

JAYSON BLAIR!

You worthless brainwashed leftarded sack of SHIT!
Loading...