General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

69. Why don't you address the blog post as well?

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:00 AM

May 2017

Peddling bullshit like "the Supremacy Clause prevents criminal prosecution of the President" is not "informing" anyone. It is misinforming them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We should ban speculation from the forum? [View all] bigtree May 2017 OP

What we want is for people not to brettdale May 2017 #1

rejecting reports, out of hand bigtree May 2017 #3

Censorship is a tactic I abhor. I'd rather make up my own mind about what I hear, shraby May 2017 #6

When has anyone been censored? Hortensis May 2017 #55

Okay, let's take you at your word jberryhill May 2017 #9

IANAL. But, while the Constitution provides that members of Congress Stonepounder May 2017 #28

Yes, that applies to members of congress during session and in transit to/from jberryhill May 2017 #31

I was agreeing with you that Stonepounder May 2017 #33

In defense of nothing, here's an assist: OilemFirchen May 2017 #30

Is the only way to discuss is as you dictate? uppityperson May 2017 #40

Okay, then what aspect of the asserted facts would YOU like to discuss? jberryhill May 2017 #42

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2017 #21

If you can prove a lie, then prove it. n/t pnwmom May 2017 #26

You don't know if they are lying or not...I would rather have all the information and make Demsrule86 May 2017 #84

...or other reasons. "strident" - indeed. other words work, too! NRaleighLiberal May 2017 #2

Freedom of Speech sucks. L. Coyote May 2017 #4

Twitter is happening, leaks are happening ... Taylor has had a pretty good record so far, so it's bettyellen May 2017 #5

I agree with you. WheelWalker May 2017 #7

"Rejecting speculative sources, out of hand, seems to be a foolish" jberryhill May 2017 #8

that's it bigtree May 2017 #11

So, go ahead jberryhill May 2017 #12

did people engage you on your opinion? bigtree May 2017 #23

Not really, no jberryhill May 2017 #24

It's your delivery Charlotte Little May 2017 #89

I have no objection to INFORMED speculation... brooklynite May 2017 #10

there are many different types of information consumers on the net bigtree May 2017 #19

Then why not just skip those OP's and go on to ones that interest you? n/t pnwmom May 2017 #60

Speculation, by its very definition, does not rest on evidence but on guesswork. LanternWaste May 2017 #94

I support the availability of the information on DU Mr. Ected May 2017 #13

It's unfortunate that it devolves into discussions about people jberryhill May 2017 #14

Truth doesn't care who the source is Mr. Ected May 2017 #15

I don't dispute that the truth doesn't care who the source is... flotsam May 2017 #86

Who said there was one? jberryhill May 2017 #88

Truth will out. In the meantime, we can talk and think about it uppityperson May 2017 #41

Naw. Even if the "speculation" turns out to be a hoax, we learn from it. McCamy Taylor May 2017 #16

"What's the worst that can happen" jberryhill May 2017 #17

DU is not "60 Minutes." We are not even a "reliable source." This is a message board. McCamy Taylor May 2017 #20

Okay, so, let's have a dialogue jberryhill May 2017 #22

Actually you are trying very hard on multiple threads to OnDoutside May 2017 #54

How am I stifling anything by discussing it? jberryhill May 2017 #68

You don't know, no more than any of the rest of us, and neither of them claim to have 100% perfect OnDoutside May 2017 #93

Why truthaddict247 May 2017 #56

Why don't you address the blog post as well? jberryhill May 2017 #69

Why do you keep pushing that point when Claude Taylor acknowledged he'd made a mistake pnwmom May 2017 #61

Wow, surprised you'd ignore my point about the blog post jberryhill May 2017 #70

To read or not to read ? That is the question . nocalflea May 2017 #18

My take: I'm a big boy who can make credibility decisions for myself Goodheart May 2017 #25

Can you point out where someone called for "banning" anything? jberryhill May 2017 #27

fwiw bigtree May 2017 #32

Some people can't stand that Louise Mensch was right about some things they got wrong; pnwmom May 2017 #29

Thats assuming though that the reason Comey was fired was because of the Russian investigations. cstanleytech May 2017 #37

Of course that was the reason. Comey told the Senate he was working with 2 Federal prosecutors pnwmom May 2017 #39

Sure its a safe bet but its also possible they did it to provide a distraction from cstanleytech May 2017 #43

What do they want to distract from? Maybe they want to stop an investigation into DT's network pnwmom May 2017 #45

This is the worst run forum on this site jeanmarc May 2017 #34

Agreed!!! LovingA2andMI May 2017 #36

I don't mean to kill this forum, but it sucks. jeanmarc May 2017 #57

I love the chaos bigtree May 2017 #38

Right on, Jeanmarc Erick the Read May 2017 #49

Let's stick together. I'm reading nonsense. NT jeanmarc May 2017 #58

Don't forget the 20 different threads on the same subject Kentonio May 2017 #67

Me neither jeanmarc May 2017 #77

Depends which forum. cstanleytech May 2017 #35

It's either true, or Mensch just ended her career and is about to be sued. StrictlyRockers May 2017 #44

I'm recruiting for breathless apologists Comrade Donald May 2017 #46

Speculation can sometimes be useful Warpy May 2017 #47

Ah yes, Fitzmas. What a colossal waste of time and energy. progressoid May 2017 #90

Amen..... chillfactor May 2017 #48

I think that speculation should be severly regulated ashling May 2017 #50

Speculation is fine as long as it's presented as speculation. Kablooie May 2017 #51

Well said, bigtree. I find the effort by some to shut down OnDoutside May 2017 #52

Bullshit sources have been banned from this forum for essentially its' entire history. LeftyMom May 2017 #53

Think about it... bathroommonkey76 May 2017 #59

I would be very wary of those persons and reports. Take it with a grain of salt. boston bean May 2017 #62

We do have a forum called "Creative Speculation." That's where all the 9/11 CTs go. I think seaglass May 2017 #63

"Information can go through many barriers" Snarkoleptic May 2017 #64

how to tell the difference from fake news??? beachbum bob May 2017 #65

Well, if it's in the NYT, it's not fake................Oh, wait. WinkyDink May 2017 #72

The issue: Some on DU are still using Pre-45 Forum Classification Constructs MedusaX May 2017 #66

YES! and Trump/Russia is a REAL CONSPIRACY not a conspiracy THEORY. Madam45for2923 May 2017 #73

It's beyond ridiculous. They would have us reading nothing of "Watergate" until the published book, WinkyDink May 2017 #71

or waited more than twenty years when "Deep Throat" real identity came out. Madam45for2923 May 2017 #74

Watergate came out in the WaPo, the nightly news, congressional hearings, etc. LeftyMom May 2017 #82

Yep, and if you don't like "speculation" posts, "Trash this thread" is your friend. GoCubsGo May 2017 #75

Depends my friend. DemocratSinceBirth May 2017 #76

If Trump had released his taxes and was not hiding his collusions we would not need speculation. Madam45for2923 May 2017 #78

Who has suggested such a thing? MineralMan May 2017 #79

Thanks MM! Good to know that people are not calling for banning. Madam45for2923 May 2017 #80

K&R mcar May 2017 #81

I thought that was already obvious. librechik May 2017 #83

Speculation is a fickle thing. Glassunion May 2017 #85

Absolutely not...we are busy enough with juries without having to sort out Demsrule86 May 2017 #87

Funny how many on that mission ran around here spreading RT bullshit forever. JTFrog May 2017 #91

If ALL speculation was banned from this forum, Skinner could eliminate this forum altogether. Solly Mack May 2017 #92