Wanna-B-Fanboy

AT&T promised 7,000 new jobs to get tax break—it cut 23,000 jobs instead
AT&T also cut capital spending despite promising $1 billion capital boost.
"AT&T has cut more than 23,000 jobs since receiving a big tax cut at the end of 2017, despite lobbying heavily for the tax cut by claiming that it would create thousands of jobs.
AT&T in November 2017 pushed for the corporate tax cut by promising to invest an additional $1 billion in 2018, with CEO Randall Stephenson saying that "every billion dollars AT&T invests is 7,000 hard-hat jobs. These are not entry-level jobs. These are 7,000 jobs of people putting fiber in ground, hard-hat jobs that make $70,000 to $80,000 per year."
The corporate tax cut was subsequently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on December 22, 2017. The tax cut reportedly gave AT&T an extra $3 billion in cash in 2018."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/att-promised-7000-new-jobs-to-get-tax-break-it-cut-23000-jobs-instead/?fbclid=IwAR2J55Zud3KMerd3MeJFypnNmvwVidmP4u85X6dhAqJvkuxNN870i2o8rZ8

Thanks Jay.

Yeah, he missed all of the 2018 season and then left the team (he could have red-shirted to get a year of eligibility back) so people thought he was done with football.
From the sounds of it, the guy turned into a ghost (Hodge says scouts were even asking him if he had any contact info because they couldn't reach him).  McManus has a family connection to him through his in-laws though so the team was able to keep in touch with him.  He got the itch to play again and here we are!

The amount the riders gonna be punting they should get their money's worth out of Ryan!

I did. Here it is, in fact. You can watch and critique the whole thing, but I looked specifically at the first 30 second intro here as a comparison:
And here is a Fox news "personality" (host, whatever term you want to tag him with, even "radio host", but he does show up on TV and is likely better known for that) for comparison's sake:
So I see a difference. You may not. It may be enough for you that each "newsman" is on stage with a political candidate at a partisan event (one calls itself a town hall but is acknowledged as being in front of "Democrats and Independents who are going to participate in the democratic primaries" and the other is a rally for the Republican President) and everything else is just semantics. I see differences in the intent of each event, in the approach taken by each newsman and their role, their level of personal interaction with the politician, and in how they "work the crowd" and in the message they deliver overall. And since this was an issue of "most biased", I'm not sure what can be said to explain the phrase "those people at the back are fake news, by the way" by a news personality, who is introduced as "someone who has been with us since the beginning, who has done an incredible job for us" when news reporters are not supposed to be about "us" and "them" or "doing jobs" for elected leaders, at least in my day.
But I have my opinion , you have yours, so I will just let others see the unredacted clips and come to their own conclusions about what they believe.

The amusing part of this guy's stuff, is he NEVER responds to anything put to him. Just keeps regurgitating the same stuff.
Completely uninterested in responding to the questions people put to him. Frequently does not read past the headline of the articles he posts.
  His information is so far out on the fringe of this, it's  comic relief. good for a dark laugh, that's about it.

The irony of someone telling others they don't understand the topic at hand - while polluting this thread with content from trash websites and making statements without evidence. How embarrassing.

First of all, please provide a source for your data as I cannot find anything that resembles those numbers.
Secondly, a 2-month aberration (if true) does not discount a 100 year warming trend.  It's like pointing to George Burns and saying "See!  Smoking is good for you!"
 

This always misguided, ill informed blather about the cause of climate change is over except in certain rapidly shrinking centres of  bad information.   Sometimes intentional, sometimes not. Set the world back at least twenty five years, dealing with this. At a minimum getting off fossil fuels would save thousands of lives, and billions in medical costs, due to heart/respiratory system damage from inhaling toxic air fouled with combustion byproducts.    And......
An electric motor converting stored energy to do work, is substantially more efficient than a combustion engine, so if anyone claims to be concerned about the efficient use of resources, which saves money, they should favour electric cars.
Who ever isn't in favour of energy efficiency and reducing health damage and costs, put up your hand.
Anyway, in the real world...links at reddit/renewable energy.... https://www.reddit.com/r/RenewableEnergy/ (a great source for information.)
2.
3.
 
4.  Toronto Star April 19th.
 

You know you've suffered severe brain damage when your source for climate change information comes from a craptacular website like No Tricks Zone.

Durham will find that the investigation was done above board, but Barr will take it upon himself (again) to provide the summary which will read exactly how Trump wants it to read. 
The public will likely not get to see the actual Durham findings.

Well, she is not wrong. 

I think deflection also applies here.
I think there are ... 3 GOP led investigations into the oranges of the investigation of trump.
 
what is going to be interesting is that those investigations will more than likely find NOTHING damning (nitpicky things, sure) but nothing truly damning and the GOP will all be THIS IS PROOF BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT!!! blah blah blah.... yet nothing from the Mueller report- it is going to be ******* maddening... yet totally expected.
Its going to be a weaponized version of the nunes report... 

WITCHUNT! CRAZED DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES!! DEEP STATE COLLUSION! GESTAPO TACTICS!!

Actually the term is cover up  or misdirection. Which ever you prefer.

Cuz hate speech is protected by the first amendment? And I personally don't think it should be.

So... She won the popular vote... yet is more unpopular than trump?
 
You lost me.

Is this the same dude who claimed that "Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth." ?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
 
Questionable science from NTZ, but Snopes' description of the site is spot on though:
" regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations."
 
And also, I think there is shady stuff going on with the data:
"numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
 
The list of dodgey practices and misrepresentation on that site is LENGTHY. So why should anyone take the site at face value and not just outright reject the falsehoods and lies from that site? Is that not the most sane thing to do when dealing with a serial liar that profits from those lies? 
 

Is this the same dude who claimed that "Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth." ?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
 
Questionable science from NTZ, but Snopes' description of the site is spot on though:
" regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations."
 
And also, I think there is shady stuff going on with the data:
"numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
 
The list of dodgey practices and misrepresentation on that site is LENGTHY. So why should anyone take the site at face value and not just outright reject the falsehoods and lies from that site? Is that not the most sane thing to do when dealing with a serial liar that profits from those lies? 
 

If you mean “idiot” in the “stupid” sense, I would disagree. He is more opinion host than reporter (so much of cable news is these days, that downfall of straightforward reporting on all sides has led to this polarization). And his job is to enflame the passions of both sides. Since you have such a strong dislike of him, it sounds like he’s intelligent enough to push your buttons with his shtick.
And if he is beyond biased, wouldn’t that make him unbiased based on the strict definition of your words? I’m pretty sure I get the point you are trying to make, but it gets lost in your hyperbole. Funny how that can happen and sabotage an argument.
As for the worst, that’s a subjectively qualitative assessment, and certainly up for debate. I won’t get into a “pick your political side and defend it with name-calling” argument - there’s been a lot of that nonsense on both sides sprinkled into the last 3 pages of this thread in between the odd valid point. I will say this, I don’t recall Lemon climbing on stage and acting as the warm-up act for a sitting politician during a stump speech rally like another “newsman” has, so I personally would not rank him as the “worst” in terms of bias on that basis alone. 

Is this the same dude who claimed that "Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth." ?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
 
Questionable science from NTZ, but Snopes' description of the site is spot on though:
" regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations."
 
And also, I think there is shady stuff going on with the data:
"numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
 
The list of dodgey practices and misrepresentation on that site is LENGTHY. So why should anyone take the site at face value and not just outright reject the falsehoods and lies from that site? Is that not the most sane thing to do when dealing with a serial liar that profits from those lies? 
 

SOrry... you quoted the evidence vs proof post of mine- I am not sure what this has to do with hamas.... or how facebook enforces their ToS.
Maybe take up my suggestion for a free/hate speech thread- seems like an appropriate place for the above quoted post. Or feel free to shoot me a PM and we can discuss why facebook is not enforcing their ToS with hamas.
 
If you want to continue with U.S. politics in this thread- I am all in!

This is crazy. How can anyone defend this.  Put him in jail until he complies and make him plead the 5th. Let’s see how that plays. 
I love this expression “perjury trap”. On other words he means “they’ll catch me lying”. 
 

case in point, the recent banning in facebook and instagram: 4 of the 6 banned were loudmouthed white males, one Black man and a white woman.