MartinII · 70-79, M
Only s long time in the future, and possibly not even then.
BizSuitStacy · M
The moment Obama started helping the radical Islamists build nuclear missiles
kittee · 26-30, T
@BizSuitStacy as opposed to trump being feted as the coming of jesus
BizSuitStacy · M

SW-User
It had been, since day one 🤷🏻♂
kittee · 26-30, T
3 weeks ago
ArishMell · 70-79, M
When it started.
kittee · 26-30, T
first day
anythingoes477 · 31-35, M
About 3 1/2 weeks ago now.
Hasn't it already?
bijouxbroussard · F
That’s what it should’ve been named, from the start.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
When you admit that you've been defeated.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@jackjjackson You are still being rude, and not even constructive.
Aere you upset that I hear or read both sides of things?
Most of my news comes from the BBC, which is as impartial as possible and tries hard to report from both sides of any conflict including wars.
For example the BBC (and probably others) circumvent Israel's ban on journalists entering Gaza, by using telephone interviews with citizens, aid-workers and even HAMAS individuals. They also interview Israeli politicians, but some of those are very rude and aggressive.
Similarly, we hear from Iranians and Lebanese as well as Israelis and Americans about that war - and from more than just government officials. From Russians as well as Ukrainians; and at home from all political parties (we've plenty of those!) and from all sides in difficult industrial conflicts.
In reporting on the USA we hear from both Democrats and Republicans, and not merely from Party publicists.
Analysis too: why Country A attacked Country B, why Party X has adopted that policy and not this, why such-and-such industry is in a dire situation.
Do you hear or read anything from all sides of anything?
I don't follow commercial sources whose owners clearly have particular, party-political leanings or views they want to promulgate; and that describes some of Britain's national newspapers, though you can usually see which way they lean. They are usually careful not to lie, but use selective editing to impart the bias.
The BBC and ITV are duty-bound to impartiality in news reporting, making clear the difference between simple facts (A attacked B) and various people's opinions ("I think A was right, wrong, etc., to attack..."). They sometimes make mistakes, as anyone does, they are sometimes accused of bias, but we have an independent body that will investigate serious complaints and uphold or reject as its analysis sees necessary.
I gather the USA once had a similar imposition on its broadcasters but has since scrapped it.
Aere you upset that I hear or read both sides of things?
Most of my news comes from the BBC, which is as impartial as possible and tries hard to report from both sides of any conflict including wars.
For example the BBC (and probably others) circumvent Israel's ban on journalists entering Gaza, by using telephone interviews with citizens, aid-workers and even HAMAS individuals. They also interview Israeli politicians, but some of those are very rude and aggressive.
Similarly, we hear from Iranians and Lebanese as well as Israelis and Americans about that war - and from more than just government officials. From Russians as well as Ukrainians; and at home from all political parties (we've plenty of those!) and from all sides in difficult industrial conflicts.
In reporting on the USA we hear from both Democrats and Republicans, and not merely from Party publicists.
Analysis too: why Country A attacked Country B, why Party X has adopted that policy and not this, why such-and-such industry is in a dire situation.
Do you hear or read anything from all sides of anything?
I don't follow commercial sources whose owners clearly have particular, party-political leanings or views they want to promulgate; and that describes some of Britain's national newspapers, though you can usually see which way they lean. They are usually careful not to lie, but use selective editing to impart the bias.
The BBC and ITV are duty-bound to impartiality in news reporting, making clear the difference between simple facts (A attacked B) and various people's opinions ("I think A was right, wrong, etc., to attack..."). They sometimes make mistakes, as anyone does, they are sometimes accused of bias, but we have an independent body that will investigate serious complaints and uphold or reject as its analysis sees necessary.
I gather the USA once had a similar imposition on its broadcasters but has since scrapped it.
jackjjackson · M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Mamapolo2016 · F
As soon as public indignitaries opened the Top Secret file.
Does anybody know what happened to the Cone of Silence from the TV show “Get Smart”? We need it desperately.
Does something that never started ever end?
Does anybody know what happened to the Cone of Silence from the TV show “Get Smart”? We need it desperately.
Does something that never started ever end?
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
It became that on Day-1. Now, with Petey Hegseth preaching scripted words from Pulp Fiction as gospel and Pedophile Cry-Baby-trump screaming how he obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities for the 3rd time, it's just a classic clown show.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jackjjackson · M
What is your factual basis for that comment please? @kittee
kittee · 26-30, T
@jackjjackson well misiles are still fallingon uae countries,
jackjjackson · M
It’s even funnier who reports that claptrap. @kittee
















