Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

No.

It's still incumbent on you to prove he actually robbed the bank.  WTF fantasyland bullshit are you conjuring here?

oh reeeeeeeealy then lets have some proof on Atlantic's unnamed sources

So you'd agree with where that went? 

The entire song is built upon the idea that there is as unbridgeable divide that splits the fortunate sons and the unfortunate sons in America. For the fortunate sons, "born with silver spoon in hand," life is good. Protected by class privilege and a discriminatory military draft system that favored the wealthy and well educated, they will never have to serve a tour of duty in Vietnam. They have the luxury of seeing the war as nothing more than an abstract idea, something they hear about on the news. They're free to support the war without having to face the consequences.

But for the unfortunate sons of America, who have no inherited wealth or privilege to protect them, the draft is likely to send them off to the jungles of Vietnam to fight and maybe die in a seemingly pointless war against an intractable enemy. Fogerty's lyrics argue that it is the fathers of the fortunate sons—"senators," "millionaires"—who got America entangled in Vietnam, but it is the sons of the powerless—disproportionately poor, black, and brown—who have to pay the ultimate price.

Just asking. 

No.

It's still incumbent on you to prove he actually robbed the bank.  WTF fantasyland bullshit are you conjuring here?

You'd need to prove it IFF you were a prosecutor taking him to court with a charge.

In the media, you don't need to prove anything.

Among the "RULES" we used to have around here, one was no profanity.  I'd like to call it a "GUIDELINE" rather than "rule", which sounds draconian.

I figure if I can't express myself well enough without profanity, I should probably work harder on my vocabulary.

well thats the whole point to this discussion unnamed sources are not proof at all and are easily used as a tool to deceive

anytime you read an article with an accusation arrived at by unnamed sources you should take a step back and say well without proof I question its credibility

the NY Times should have taught you this

This would be easier to take if Trump didn't make it his personal goal to punish named people, and his sycophants ate it up.  For example, remember Alexander Vindman?  Remember how Republicans felt it was their solemn duty to expose the whistleblower?  You can't have that and also want people to stick their neck out for you.

I'm not sure how being named is sticking one's neck out, if one is no longer in government employ.

I think everyone still employed and present has said Trump didn't say it.

LOL gee I dunno how could the President of the United States possibly make life difficult for people.  

On a side note, the media often gets blamed for things, but the people get what they want.  People don't want to believe their president is a disrespectful idiot, so they come to his defense - the president could be on tape making these statements and they would still defend him and blame the media.  

LOL gee I dunno how could the President of the United States possibly make life difficult for people. 

On a side note, the media often gets blamed for things, but the people get what they want.  People don't want to believe their president is a disrespectful idiot, so they come to his defense - the president could be on tape making these statements and they would still defend him and blame the media. 

all pure opinion which you are welcome to

Is telling people what the president says and does "sullying his reputation for political purposes" ?

in this case it was especially if untrue