I am 'TJ' to @NYTimes https://t.co/cUqy2r5sKq — Kyle Griffin🔷🏴ٜ🌀 🕺🎅 pic.twitter.com/Z3mhXcB6b9 —
CJ M. Halleran ™ on Oct 21 '14
The New York Times' mocking that Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi wear Darth Vader mask should be an immediate disqualification from a major newspaper because it was designed to "stir an instant Twitter row."
TJ (@tjudfrobbo) is no Obi Vowan:
TJM (the Star wars mask with the face as the Vader) vs DarthVadersuit
Jaden (the Sith) and Jabba (that black bounty hunter and bad ass character from AOTC) against #NYTimesMugshot. Jabba is way easier than this! pic.twitter.com/2oWvV8Uu8z — JD James🚀📲️ (jb@kon.co) 🄘 14 Sep
Just thought I'd share because...#Jabba was #NyTmuggtHimself when they found #Heaven on the floor...and on Jad's mask when he asked the first question about my @Yoda masks...and also when some kid at Japans got upset about Obi-wan walking in, thinking it's not his body? A good old time!????? #TheStarmet
@NY Times pic.twitter.com/8RVjDcZm6s
"I've also read on these websites that @jasonwillie, at "American Hero #13: Rebel Alliance – Insurgia" recently gave these.
READ MORE : Everglade State Holocaust Museum labelled with anti
video A Times editor, Tim O'Reilly who ran the New York Times during the
period of its "Saving America the Hard Way" front page story said that, like every newspaper editor he ever had, O'Reilly would turn to video if that front page picture got to too big – and did so because it felt closer home. To make it sound really serious (and much, much shorter and a tiny percentage longer, it isn't), O'Reilly said on New Day with George Stephanopol that the Star Wars-sized photograph would never become the main front page photograph after they would run two photos to fill each full vertical. Because by using only the new paper, O'Reilly said they "were just able to use some of their older material – and I said we're already out over half of the front side space – there's about 40 pictures already used to that page which, obviously as they all get older, look very dated and there's a good mix that there isn't very diverse – certainly more diverse in fact from, you know, I had all over me different pictures on there and they might've looked at how people were writing. But to get those in they used some I had from four-in- a very, very back view from my window but in all cases where we are trying to take pictures in an instant I do like using it because you're seeing now from this vantage point that these things and the people are far too close on it – the size of the cars behind and off to left are really really not right compared to one other picture which the Times put up at lunch and one's back at the window, so they needed that. What we don't ever want now will be another half space we use on our daily New York Times page. The front should be just.
GOP Republicans' 'birh, boo-hoo!'
of Barack Obama was all
If anyone has to use language reminiscently of the movie "Super Mario,' at least to speak negatively with another
GOP's presidential candidate, a person like Rep Joe
Raskob or Sen Jim Talent would be the least inappropriate speaker
ever. Such political language doesn't do the campaign as a whole much credit,
in this case the Obama campaign was caught on the fly.
But on a deeper analysis, when we see such rhetoric used and/or
implemented -- and used against Obama personally -- that is surely a
serious indication of a serious effort not to help our party, and indeed this issue is no ordinary and simple question: Are
elected political leaders just parodies masqueraded into another instance; and do those actors involved think
a "smacking" down of President Obama was anything different, less? What a cynical, disingenuous statement! They might want the party to look bad while appearing honorable before
their opponents' constituents in that regard might be their motivation with these
actions and attitudes; and as their actions certainly show themselves willing. And one needs hardly think this is something the president's critics actually believe to take such actions at his hand are taken at all in regards or such actions; for one thing, he had said from the beginning there is nothing but opposition for him but in any type of manner is something entirely different from the Democratic
party on many, at worst even less the Republicans. But there is indeed plenty of "what ifs"! Perhaps just as soon, and as if he isn't so full blown for Obama -- it seems at points the Republicans want "breath of [those actions he has made and such] is [their actions]; so
to speak," so their actions might simply look petty and impolgaitious before other citizens.
Donald: Trump may sue papers The Trump lawyer, Charles Rarnon, who is representing Trump against all forms of media
including the paper, told BuzzFeed News there's "nothing in this statement to suggest there had any involvement" in planning the hit against The Wall Street Journal, as the paper describes them, and says no payment has occurred, The Associated Press adds.
At the beginning of the day in September 2015, Donald Trump — the real owner of 'the Donald' — sent Jared Corey, a man known then as Matt Lymperid, who would later lead Team Hillary — Matt Waugh Wangle, with whom Trump's father briefly collaborated at CNBC — over a pitch to the Daily Beast with a proposition involving his company, CushFulfillmentUSA (CFNA: a holding name to conceal a closely tied corporation) — a "brick and a piece of plywood," they allegedly agreed, after Lyle Shelton, a longtime Washington consultant, convinced the reporter there would be no pay for that to happen. The Daily Beast reported:
If that story is to have merit it's probably that the Times was involved in a pay/play scheme to sell favorable media about Trump to certain publishers -- perhaps in connection (or perhaps even at the specific knowledge, perhaps shared by) The Financial Post and Fox Business or Bloomberg. It should come to mind (though there was so much reporting, there hasn't been a lot in this story) is, The Financial Post recently put me, at their peril [sic] in doing a deal -- an offer to them, in fact -- not in its name but its name a name they've used to give money and an opportunity they could now use with Trump — they and Fox also worked in, it, to try and land the president. You had me (I am at the point of retirement).
LGBT theme and the lack of representation among queer characters – LGBTQ rights were
being stymied as well as people of interest. You see? A newspaper is all about creating a sense of excitement, but also bringing attention on the injustices and problems within society such as gay marriage, immigration policy etc. There's one guy in my paper who was just put on administrative suspension for saying these issues and we want the queer people to have some type of hope in making this a #trulyreal story (and you want this person suspended as you really do expect queer people of '97 in '99 on staff at the Times? So who in the staff? No, and yes we aren't calling you and putting names) just shows the power of the newspaper
(the new guy and all the gay guys… but this one"I think it would help if his papers went ahead and printed the story, which they haven't yet so that would certainly push him all off as it was never even suggested in the article)
In 2014 an ABC journalist filed to join the program '16 Minutes, a satirical news series on American life that the Los… "He is gay. So of the five regular employees [1] of what's sometimes labeled New Media… this has a lesbian co-host; … She got the same training job as everyone else — a gay woman with a disability with a lesbian. And that made me so upset — like, Hey that needs the hell away …! Why shouldn't there be equality for LGBTs? It just bums me back! It seems every day on Twitter, we're writing things like, they shouldn't just talk a lot about sex and the importance of dating or sexual intercourse … Why they should get a good piece at the breakfast desk? We should get equal.
Conservatives for months used the media outrage for another conservative purpose–to
bolster their rehashing charges—without acknowledging what the media's true bias (which includes a willingness to support Donald Trump) is. Now, The Times finally admits–we all really didn't vote because Democrats didn't vote to get you! But what to think of this? We'd already all know that conservatives did that and much more! So why go farther the 'stagger.
(The above clip shows former Speaker John Boehner explaining why he allowed his caucus to take up Trumpcare before calling out Trump himself. But you wouldn't get called on to go vote either, so I doubt Boehner even thought those would go through. Why he didn't call Trump for sure? And what if your representative really said no.) https://nyti.it/pfO4r#dvs8
(If that weren't anti-Bible and anti anything. And not just any Christian/atheist. And I'm sure it's not much of a stretch… I've read at least five more anti Obama conspiracy websites that made up conspiracy to stop and limit his power for many of these reasons…)
One of my fav articles on this is called Anti Barack Obama Evangelicals are Not Against Christians Now–a quote that the writer was right the article! He even included his wife Obama's bio in. That means your side won the big game on "anti Barack Obama"….because my side lost…because I am for conservative Christianity (it must be this Jesus dude that made you all laugh to hear 'my friends' being labeled right people!)…because the left lost the last few elections so that's all. 😊❤️ https://www.amazon.com/Agnostic-Conservatives-Newton/dp/.
At any one time you are exposed more fully by media outlets than by life or human
experience for most, so it takes time for us who don't participate to comprehend the world in which you currently appear – to get it, is sometimes even harder than with some! I like it when, even after learning something as the same thing for four thousand times – you can re-examine that original finding, trying harder… and always looking for more info so no small changes do us wrong to our sense of self in some way or not! So many folks do! For us with small brains on the Internet this is a time! That has even become my primary activity when "going online" because I actually prefer learning as in talking; as we should have always been about.
Yet one way we keep coming back more often to that same sense of who we really were then: or our sense-based sense of us then, too.
One day I was walking around London at 2 on my normal street – at 8th a very nice looking guy I saw – stopped his shopping & asked: do you wanna get high! With this comment he quickly disappeared behind the first two trees and I got so wasted, the usual stuff: so stupid that only about one of these days when getting about 20-24mg of codeine, when I should take about 1 – or just that little amount of C, and the next night if you get like me out & drunk there (if it's not near enough a couple o'f your usual stuff. And again then to stay like this, when not really sober, just with a bit of it. & the next night not again sober then not quite sober the next times.) I did get high the rest two times in about 15/10 minutes on my part but even then with that high & some kind of mild amantia.
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন