TRUMP.

[Elizabeth]

Obviously that was not President Trumps' voice. Surely it is illegal in the US, as it is elsewhere, to dub anothers' voice into an interview.

[Matchmaker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_PC_fy ... e=youtu.be

Thanks, Elizabeth, for having the courage to post this video in between Joel's and Silver's messages. It reminds me there are always 2 sides to a story.

[Joel]

Obviously that was not President Trumps' voice. Surely it is illegal in the US, as it is elsewhere, to dub anothers' voice into an interview.

We are not like North Korea yet, thankfully we can enjoy some laughs and not be deemed a criminal by the government, though I am sure there are some who wish it was much easier to silence dissent in any of its forms.

[Silver]

Obviously that was not President Trumps' voice. Surely it is illegal in the US, as it is elsewhere, to dub anothers' voice into an interview.

We are not like North Korea yet, thankfully we can enjoy some laughs and not be deemed a criminal by the government, though I am sure there are some who wish it was much easier to silence dissent in any of its forms.

1984 is getting ever closer.

[Elizabeth]

Some laughs? Dubbing anothers' voice into an interview is hardly a matter hilarity. Not only illegal but immoral.
In my media days this would have meant dismissal, and rightly so!

Obviously that was not President Trumps' voice. Surely it is illegal in the US, as it is elsewhere, to dub anothers' voice into an interview.

We are not like North Korea yet, thankfully we can enjoy some laughs and not be deemed a criminal by the government, though I am sure there are some who wish it was much easier to silence dissent in any of its forms.

[Joel]

Some laughs? Dubbing anothers' voice into an interview is hardly a matter hilarity. Not only illegal but immoral.
In my media days this would have meant dismissal, and rightly so!

=)) great stuff!

[Silver]

Some laughs? Dubbing anothers' voice into an interview is hardly a matter hilarity. Not only illegal but immoral.
In my media days this would have meant dismissal, and rightly so!

Obviously that was not President Trumps' voice. Surely it is illegal in the US, as it is elsewhere, to dub anothers' voice into an interview.

We are not like North Korea yet, thankfully we can enjoy some laughs and not be deemed a criminal by the government, though I am sure there are some who wish it was much easier to silence dissent in any of its forms.

Are you able to provide any references that the video breaks US or international law?

[Elizabeth]

Common sense, decency and intelligence are all that is needed to know so.
No doubt there are references, if one is inclined to take the time to find them.

Some laughs? Dubbing anothers' voice into an interview is hardly a matter hilarity. Not only illegal but immoral.
In my media days this would have meant dismissal, and rightly so!

Obviously that was not President Trumps' voice. Surely it is illegal in the US, as it is elsewhere, to dub anothers' voice into an interview.

We are not like North Korea yet, thankfully we can enjoy some laughs and not be deemed a criminal by the government, though I am sure there are some who wish it was much easier to silence dissent in any of its forms.

Are you able to provide any references that the video breaks US or international law?

[Silver]

Common sense, decency and intelligence are all that is needed to know so.
No doubt there are references, if one is inclined to take the time to find them.

Some laughs? Dubbing anothers' voice into an interview is hardly a matter hilarity. Not only illegal but immoral.
In my media days this would have meant dismissal, and rightly so!

We are not like North Korea yet, thankfully we can enjoy some laughs and not be deemed a criminal by the government, though I am sure there are some who wish it was much easier to silence dissent in any of its forms.

Are you able to provide any references that the video breaks US or international law?

In other words, a lot of sound and fury, without any proof. Thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you backstage.

[Elizabeth]

Since when is deceit a Christian attribute?

[Silver]

Since when is deceit a Christian attribute?

OK, Elizabeth, since you have decided to make this issue your Custer's Last Stand, let's rewind the tape.

You asserted that a gag video was illegal in the US and elsewhere.
Joel tried to defuse your indignation by assuring you the video was just for laughs.
You doubled down on your claim of the illegality of dubbing a different voice onto the video.
I called for a reference.
You tried to escape your claim using the crutch of "Common sense, decency and intelligence".
I noted that of course, as I thought, you had no proof.
And that brings us to your latest post about deceit, quoted above.

Questions:
1. Were you deceived by the tape? Did you, Elizabeth, truly think that was Marmalade's real voice? If you weren't deceived, then probably most adults weren't either. Probably most teenagers weren't either. Probably most Primary-aged children wouldn't be either. We might get a few Sunbeams that turn from the video with a bit of puzzlement in their eyes. We could probably hoodwink the entire Nursery though. That was the target market for the video in the first place.
2. Perhaps you've deceived someone with your claim, not once but twice, that the video is illegal. If you're so certain, why don't you share the relevant US federal or state law on this matter? I think that if you could, you would have already.

Observation:
I asked you once if you liked seeing dead babies after you posted some Trump info. You claimed that you were merely copy/pasting from a Trump website. So even though you've got no particular interest in defending Trump or his policies, here you are again taking up for him after Joel posted a video making fun of the the man. It would be interesting to know how you really feel. For or against.

[Joel]

Judge rejects Trump’s free speech defense in lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump’s free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.

Trump’s lawyers sought to dismiss the lawsuit by three protesters who say they were roughed up by his supporters at a March 1, 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky. They argued that Trump didn’t intend for his supporters to use force.

Two women and a man say they were shoved and punched by audience members at Trump’s command. Much of it was captured on video and widely broadcast during the campaign, showing Trump pointing at the protesters and repeating “get them out.”

Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed. Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters’ injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump’s actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

“It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get ’em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” the judge wrote. “It was an order, an instruction, a command.”

Plaintiffs Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau allege that they were physically attacked by several members of the audience, including Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger and an unnamed defendant they have yet to be able to identify.

Bamberger later apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association, whose uniform he wore at the rally. He wrote that he “physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit” after “Trump kept saying ‘get them out, get them out,” according to the lawsuit.

Heimbach, for his part, sought to dismiss the lawsuit’s discussion of his association with a white nationalist group and of statements he made about how Trump could advance the group’s interests. The judge declined, saying such information could be important context when determining punitive damages.

The judge also declined to remove allegations that Nwanguma, an African-American, was the victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from the crowd at the rally. This context may support the plaintiffs’ claims of negligence and incitement by Trump and his campaign, the judge said.

“While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred,” Hale wrote.

Lawyers for Trump and his campaign also argued that they cannot be held liable because they had no duty to the plaintiffs, who assumed the risk of injury when they decided to protest at the rally. The judge countered that under the law, every person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury.

“In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that the Trump Defendants had a duty to prevent it,” the judge ruled, referring the case to a federal magistrate, Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl, to handle preliminary litigation, discovery and settlement efforts.

New strategy

In a Friday afternoon federal court filing Donald Trump’s lawyers argued that he cannot be sued for inciting his supporters to hurt protesters because, as the president, he is immune from civil lawsuits.

The lawsuit was brought by three protesters who allege they were roughed up and ejected by Trump supporters from a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky. The incident took place after Trump barked from the stage “get 'em out of here!”

In addition to Trump’s presidential campaign and the president himself, the lawsuit seeks damages from two Trump supporters who confronted the protesters. The protesters argue the Trump supporters were acting at his direction. the lawyers wrote, “The Trump Defendants deny that Mr. Trump directed his statement to the crowd."

[Elizabeth]

No, not from a Trump website, from a private email.

You claimed that you were merely copy/pasting from a Trump website.

They are not my words... by posting the quote I am only passing on the message from Trump Headquarters, I am not giving my opinion one way or the other.

"This morning, President Trump released the America First budget, which promises to make our nation a better, safer, and stronger place for generations to come. Here’s how he will do that:

Department of Veterans Affairs +10.2% in funding
Department of Defense +10.0% in funding
Department of Homeland Security +7.3% in funding
Environmental Protection Agency - 31% in funding

President Trump is delivering on promises to strengthen our military, build a wall securing our country, and provide more resources for our veterans who risk their lives to protect us, while cutting BILLIONS from liberal programs.

Trump Headquarters "

America should spend less on the military, Elizabeth, unless you're a warmonger. Besides, what part of $20 Trillion in sovereign debt do you not understand? We're broke. We should kiss and make up with our enemies before we make them really mad at us, before we bomb another one of their wedding parties. Do you like dead babies, Elizabeth?

[Silver]

No, not from a Trump website, from a private email.

OK, an email and not a website. So does this mean you've decided to not respond regarding the legality of the dubbed video?

[Elizabeth]

My previous comments stand and are sufficient for any reasonable person.
My valuable time is not available to be wasted in proving to you such obvious facts.

No, not from a Trump website, from a private email.

OK, an email and not a website. So does this mean you've decided to not respond regarding the legality of the dubbed video?

[Silver]

My previous comments stand and are sufficient for any reasonable person.
My valuable time is not available to be wasted in proving to you such obvious facts.

No, not from a Trump website, from a private email.

OK, an email and not a website. So does this mean you've decided to not respond regarding the legality of the dubbed video?

That's really funny. I hope claims like that appear in all our future presidential debates

[Silver]

My previous comments stand and are sufficient for any reasonable person.
My valuable time is not available to be wasted in proving to you such obvious facts.

No, not from a Trump website, from a private email.

OK, an email and not a website. So does this mean you've decided to not respond regarding the legality of the dubbed video?

Hey, Elizabeth is this illegal, too?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v75wCTMZoSY

[Elizabeth]

Silver, are you an agnostic?

[Silver]

Silver, are you an agnostic?

I would be happy to answer that question as soon as you provide proof to your earlier claims.

[freedomforall]

Silver, are you an agnostic?

I would be happy to answer that question as soon as you provide proof to your earlier claims.

Have you ever read this book?

How to Win Friends & Influence People

Learn:

* Three fundamental techniques in handling people

* The six ways to make people like you

* The twelve ways to win people to you way of thinking

* The nine ways to change people without arousing resentment

[Joel]

[Joel]

[Silver]

Somebody, anybody, please introduce me to Sassy.

[inho]

Reuters:

Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - documents

[Joel]