I've often wondered what OSUT stands for. Ohio State University Titties?I just wish @KG1 would venture outside of GenPol. I guess he's not "tough" enough to visit the OSUT thread. But we are a pretty scary bunch over there.
I've often wondered what OSUT stands for. Ohio State University Titties?I just wish @KG1 would venture outside of GenPol. I guess he's not "tough" enough to visit the OSUT thread. But we are a pretty scary bunch over there.
Interestingly, Trump doing the long form interviews has a flavor of just this. The ability to have a conversation lay out visions, strategy, identify problems strengths and weaknesses, convey the opportunities seen.Agreed. Unless and until a completely neutral set of moderators (not happening) can be found to conduct them, they're going to be pointless. They should go back to the format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates - no moderators. First debater got 60 minutes to speak, second debater got 90 minutes, then the first was given 30 minutes of rebuttal time.
Thanks. And maybe, I think it's pinned to the top of "new posts" lol.Official Status Update Thread. It's in the Break Room.
If this comes out as the X posts suggest it will be a huge black eye for the entire mainstream media…I was thinking she was being told what to say and do while it was going on.
This makes sense because she normally has no clue what to say or do.
Then the moderators were in on this the whole time.
If this is true of course.
I wonder if any INGOers are a member of this group?
When do you believe the definition changed. Who gave the definition you understood? Are unnamed sources a thing if the past? In the day of doxxing we live in do you blame whistleblowers for wanting to be behind the scenes publicly?Has "whistleblower" become the new term for "unnamed sources"? I thought the term whistleblower carried some sort of legal shielding so that wrongdoings can be exposed without fear of retribution.
In recent practice, "whistleblowers" seem to be used for otherwise unsubstantiated claims much like the "unnamed sources" of the past.
"Well, [someone I can't name] told me [something I can't prove] and it makes [my current political target] look bad." - yours truly, Everytalkinghead.
Not yet, but we already have an admission agreement of rigging the debate by Kameltoe’s sorority sister that was a moderator…IS the letter out yet?
An " un-named source" gives the media the ability to make up a story without having to verify a source or have any accountability for the truthfulness of it, it can't be "fact checked".When do you believe the definition changed. Who gave the definition you understood? Are unnamed sources a thing if the past? In the day of doxxing we live in do you blame whistleblowers for wanting to be behind the scenes publicly?
If the whistleblower works for ABC news they would face instant reprisals. I don’t blame them.
Good definition. In the current situation they are working on redacting a formal affidavit which I see as a confirmable source, even if we do not know who it is…An " un-named source" gives the media the ability to make up a story without having to verify a source or have any accountability for the truthfulness of it, it can't be "fact checked".
A "whistleblower" at least implies that there is a confirmable source to the report that, eventually, may be verifiable.
The left wing media uses "un-named source" way to much in reporting and they use it to push their deceitful, lying agendas without having to be accountable.
Found a poll from yesterday. According to this one he's ahead.What polls is he talking about?