Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

The Other Side

jphelan
jphelan
May 24, 2015
12:42am
Block User
Adding to Jatki's point, there is no reasonable doubt standard in any divorce court proceeding. Any side can make any allegation any perjury is virtually non-existent (see link below). For this reason, I think divorce transcripts should NEVER be made public because many of the simple minded take everything in divorce transcripts as fact.

https://www.divorceroom.com/divorce-cases/perjury-in-divorce-cases.html

Why doesn't the news media do their job and interview the O'Reilly family or do more digging? Or, maybe the simple minded are convinced already of the "facts" from the divorce transcripts. The simple-minded are convinced quickly without the facts and often wrong --- HANDS UP - DON'T SHOOT.
malibber2
malibber2
May 24, 2015
2:23am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Alan as I said once before it is true they have the court transcripts. The source told them about the case and they went and got the transcripts.
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
No, Gawker isn't a blogger, it's a fairly popular publication. No, a blogger didn't post an anonymous rumor, a publication (Gawker) cited an anonymous source. You know, like Deep Throat in the Watergate saga.

Both sides do it? Bullshit.

So...Forkush equates the Gawker Celebrity Gossip blog with The Washington Post...
No, I was simply trying to explain to you the difference between a lone blogger and Gawker, a lone blogger posting gossip and a publication citing an anonymous source, and a lone partisan blogger versus an non-partisan publication.

I guess I should have typed slower.

Next I suppose I'll have to explain the meaning of the word "slander" to you.

Citing anonymous and questionable sources to attack political opposition...especially at a personal level is no way to go through life Whether it's one person's blog or a writer with a vendetta from the 'Publication' Gawker or the 'Publication' 'National Inquirer they are not known for journalistic integrity. You said it yourself....the celebrity gossip blog Gawker whores for clicks. So yeah, Gawker isn't the same as a one man blog with political bias. But it isn't a model of journalistic integrity either.....and they don't care as long as they get the eyeballs.

And I'm not sure which is sleazier...A right wing LVA poster linking to some political blog with anonymous sources that he thinks is true; a left wing LVA poster linking to some Celebrity Gossip 'Publication' with anonymous sources that he thinks is true...but doesn't really care as long as it attacks 'Faux News'...Or Harry Reid on the Senate Floor smearing Mitt Romney with anonymous allegations' that he knew weren't true. Make no mistake...they're all sleazy...and both sides do it....The politics of personal destruction.


Just because there was an allegation in court doesn't make it true, Sheesh. There's usually lots of mudslinging in in nasty divorces, don't you think?, or do you think everything said in all divorce cases(or other cases for that matter) is true verbatim? nah, I'm sure there's never been any stretching of the truth if not flat out mistruths just because it's said in court.

Anyway, I'm not defending the guy, if he did it, he did it, I don't really care. I'm just saying one side is defending this as gospel when I'm sure it probably isn't, it didn't come from a credible source at all. The Gawker? Really?


No what makes it likely true is the fact that Judge took his joint custody away from him and then there is the record of his past behavior. Also the person making these allegations was a neutral court appointed psychologist who was hired by the court to interview all of the parties in the case not someone affiliated with his ex.

Billo Rage

That is defiantly a guy that I could see dragging his wife down the stairs and choking her in front of his child.

Not to mention their are public records that support he did try and get his wife's boyfriend fired.

Edited to add: As to why his family members can't be interviewed it is because they all signed a confidentiality agreement that forbids them talking about it.
forkushV
forkushV
May 24, 2015
1:48pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
No, Gawker isn't a blogger, it's a fairly popular publication. No, a blogger didn't post an anonymous rumor, a publication (Gawker) cited an anonymous source. You know, like Deep Throat in the Watergate saga.

Both sides do it? Bullshit.

So...Forkush equates the Gawker Celebrity Gossip blog with The Washington Post...
No, I was simply trying to explain to you the difference between a lone blogger and Gawker, a lone blogger posting gossip and a publication citing an anonymous source, and a lone partisan blogger versus an non-partisan publication.

I guess I should have typed slower.

Next I suppose I'll have to explain the meaning of the word "slander" to you.

Citing anonymous and questionable sources to attack political opposition...especially at a personal level is no way to go through life...
So alanleroy, do you know any of us liberals here who are going through life citing anonymous and questionable sources? Me neither! And unless jphelan is your new go-to source, your accusation that Senator Reid lied will need a bit more backup.

And if you ever read anything about grand jury proceedings, the TPP treaty, Abu Ghraib, My Lai, the Vatican Bank, or Watergate, you've been reading journalists who cited anonymous sources. But when they attack Bill O'Reilly, that's when it really angers you, huh?

That must be because you are such a centrist.
alanleroy
alanleroy
May 24, 2015
11:08pm
Block User
Nevermind.

Don
Don
May 24, 2015
11:50pm
Block User
DonDiego apologizes.

He apparently misunderstood the objective of the author of the original piece quoted. He thought the writer was satirizing the objective of many conversationalists on the internets to divide the world into those with whom they agree and those with whom they don't and subsequently attack the former and defend the latter without permitting rational analysis of any arguments or presentation of facts to intrude, . . . and with no consideration that there may be more than two "sides" in a diverse ever-changing world.

It is clear from the subsequent posts on this thread that honoring and defending one's side and demeaning and attacking the other side is, in fact, much more important. And there are only two sides after all.

DonDiego apologizes for attempting to initiate a sensible discussion of the matter.
alanleroy
alanleroy
May 24, 2015
11:59pm
Block User


Kevzilla
Kevzilla
May 25, 2015
12:00am
Block User
Kevzilla regrets to inform DonDiego that nuance and reason are not available in this forum, which is why Kevzilla rarely even reads here any more, much less posts. Hoping you and teechur are well.
jphelan
jphelan
May 25, 2015
2:06am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
No, Gawker isn't a blogger, it's a fairly popular publication. No, a blogger didn't post an anonymous rumor, a publication (Gawker) cited an anonymous source. You know, like Deep Throat in the Watergate saga.

Both sides do it? Bullshit.

So...Forkush equates the Gawker Celebrity Gossip blog with The Washington Post...
No, I was simply trying to explain to you the difference between a lone blogger and Gawker, a lone blogger posting gossip and a publication citing an anonymous source, and a lone partisan blogger versus an non-partisan publication.

I guess I should have typed slower.

Next I suppose I'll have to explain the meaning of the word "slander" to you.


Citing anonymous and questionable sources to attack political opposition...especially at a personal level is no way to go through life...
So alanleroy, do you know any of us liberals here who are going through life citing anonymous and questionable sources? Me neither! And unless jphelan is your new go-to source, your accusation that Senator Reid lied will need a bit more backup.

And if you ever read anything about grand jury proceedings, the TPP treaty, Abu Ghraib, My Lai, the Vatican Bank, or Watergate, you've been reading journalists who cited anonymous sources. But when they attack Bill O'Reilly, that's when it really angers you, huh?

That must be because you are such a centrist.


Forky - Happy Memorial day! And for your viewing pleasure, find the youtube links below.....but "the word is out", you never can trust video can you?


Word Is Out Mitt Romney has not paid taxes in 10 years

He didn't win, did he?
alanleroy
alanleroy
May 25, 2015
2:34am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
DonDiego apologizes.

He apparently misunderstood the objective of the author of the original piece quoted. He thought the writer was satirizing the objective of many conversationalists on the internets to divide the world into those with whom they agree and those with whom they don't and subsequently attack the former and defend the latter without permitting rational analysis of any arguments or presentation of facts to intrude, . . . and with no consideration that there may be more than two "sides" in a diverse ever-changing world.

It is clear from the subsequent posts on this thread that honoring and defending one's side and demeaning and attacking the other side is, in fact, much more important. And there are only two sides after all.

DonDiego apologizes for attempting to initiate a sensible discussion of the matter.

The original piece showed how opposing political sides both use the same meaningless sound bites to push voter hot buttons. They both use tactics that paint their opponents in a bad personal light while claiming only 'Their Side' takes the moral high ground....or only the other side does it. Accuse their opponents of being 'Radical or Extreme' or 'Stupid and Angry', mix in a few more buzz words and you have the Great political discourse of our time.

This thread perfectly illustrates that. No need to apologize for "attempting to initiate a sensible discussion of the matter". Apologize for not participating and offering sensible insights to help steer your thread to 'The Truth'. Do both parties behave like this or is it just one side? I say it's both. Give us your thoughts.

pjstroh
pjstroh
May 25, 2015
3:43am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy

Do both parties behave like this or is it just one side? I say it's both. Give us your thoughts.


Its probably not even fair to show the lies about Obama from his opponents vs the other way around...so lets start with a clean slate.

Lets take a look at candidates in the upcoming presidential election cycle. So far I'm aware that Hillary Clinton has been baselessly accused of:
- covering up some kind of nefarious act in Bengazhi during her tenure as Secretary of State. No one can say what that nefarious act is. But they sure do know it was scummy - whatever that act was.
- using her charity as some kind of front for financial gain.
- is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood. The evidence being that she had an assistant with Islamic heritage.

Maybe Alan can help us out and tell us what untrue, defaming lies are being told by democrats surrounding any of the current GOP candidates. I'm curious to see how both sides engage in this sort of behavior on the same scale.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now