1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    I am putting this here because it looks to me like John Kerry is positioning himself to run for president.

    John Kerry: Trump has ‘the insecurity of a teenage girl’

    http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ys-trump-has-the-insecurity-of-a-teenage-girl
     
    1. shootersa
      John Kerry. The revolution would love to see that robber run for an elected office. They'd crucify the disloyal unpatriotic fucker if he ran for reelection.
       
      shootersa, Sep 15, 2018
    2. Distant Lover
      I have liked John Kerry ever since he helped lead the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It takes real character to expose war crimes one's side committed.
       
      Distant Lover, Sep 24, 2018
  2. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,274
    Well, lets look at this a bit closer, shall we?
    Initially, the 2017 storm was credited with 64 deaths. This, the PR government thought, was a bit low, so they commissioned a study to see how accurate that was, which resulted in the 2,975 deaths figure.

    So, why the huge difference?
    Well, first of all, when we hear "death toll from hurricane ........." most people think about people who are killed mainly during the storm, or die from injuries received from the storm, like drowning, or are hit by shit because of the high winds and so forth.
    That's the 64 deaths figure.

    The researchers commissioned to do the study took the definition in a different direction though, to include people who MIGHT HAVE died as an indirect result of the hurricane, including, for example, a case of exposure to carbon monoxide, a suicide, a person run over by his own vehicle and a death from complications following a fall. And, they looked at mortality rates before and after the storm, and discovered that 1,400 more people died after the hurricane than immediately before. So, they added 1,400 to their death toll count.

    So, one can understand why President Trump, in his oafish way, might challenge the 3,000 figure. If one thinks that a death toll ought to reflect only people who are killed as a DIRECT result of the storm, they will be at odds with people who think "death toll" means anyone at anytime who died maybe, perhaps, kind of looks like they coulda died because of the storm.

    There are valid arguments for both positions. That does not make President Trump an idiot, delusional, or mentally ill.

    Except to unsupporters. For them, anything they can drum up............
     
    1. imported__2355
      Ok, so what you are saying is that while the study was off by 1400 deaths, Trump was still off by 1536 deaths, right? So how does 1500 people dead translate int a great success?
       
      imported__2355, Sep 16, 2018
    2. shootersa
      No. Did not say that.
      The 64 deaths were people that died because they drowned during the storm, or were hit by flying debris during the storm, or died as a direct result of injuries received because of the storm.

      The 2,975 figure was arrived at by looking at every death since the storm, even deaths in the US months after the storm. For example, someone died of carbon monoxide poisoning sitting in their car long after the storm.
      Or, someone run over by their own car after the storm, trying to get it unstuck.
      Or, someone who kills them self the day after the storm. No other information, just a suicide after the storm.
      Or, a guy falls off his roof clearing debris, after the storm. That counted.
      Or, mortality after the storm is 1,400 people higher than before the storm. Clearly, storm related. Tack on 1,400.

      The people who came up with the 2,975 figure can't provide a list of who they counted and why they counted them.

      We know exactly who the 64 are, and why they were counted.
       
      shootersa, Sep 17, 2018
    3. imported__2355
      The 3000 deaths and the methodology used to arrive at that figure has been accepted by everyone other than the White House and Trump's FEMA appointee. If you check the George Washington University website you can see the methodology yourself. BUT you won't look because, well, Trump.
       
      imported__2355, Sep 17, 2018
      Distant Lover likes this.
    4. imported__2355
      The 3000 deaths and the methodology used to arrive at that figure has been accepted by everyone other than the White House and Trump's FEMA appointee. If you check the George Washington University website you can see the methodology yourself. BUT you won't look because, well, Trump.
       
      imported__2355, Sep 17, 2018
  3. Truthful 1

    Truthful 1 coal fired windmills Banned!

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    39,816
    True. Y is it so hard for people to see the real story .
    It's so obvious what the media does . Especially nowadays they don't even try to disguise what they do . It's blatant
     
  4. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    Primary turnout soars in 2018 with Dems leading charge

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/406779-primary-turnout-soars-in-2018-with-dems-leading-charge
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    Dems gain momentum 50 days before midterms

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/406908-50-days-out-dems-have-momentum-in-midterm-race
     
    1. submissively speaking
      Why do paragraphs repeat themselves like that? It seems to happen a lot.
       
    2. stumbler
      I am not sure. I thought I got them all straight but I was in a hurry.
       
      stumbler, Sep 17, 2018
    3. stumbler
      I am not sure. I thought I got them all straight but I was in a hurry.
       
      stumbler, Sep 17, 2018
    4. stumbler
      And why do I keep getting double posts?
       
      stumbler, Sep 17, 2018
      submissively speaking likes this.
    5. submissively speaking
      It doesn’t happen just to you. It’s almost like the paste function gets degraded here. It’s weird.
       
      stumbler likes this.
  6. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,274
    The 3000 deaths and the methodology used to arrive at that figure has been accepted by everyone other than the White House and Trump's FEMA appointee. If you check the George Washington University website you can see the methodology yourself. BUT you won't look because, well, Trump.
    imported__2355, Yesterday at 10:49 PM

    Well Jesus. Fine. Lets delve into that "accepted study" a bit deeper, you know, to understand the issue. And yes, Shooter read the report on the GW web site, all 71 pages, among other sources. Did you?

    https://www.gwu.edu/search/Puerto+Rico+study+methodology
    https://www.vox.com/2018/9/13/17855414/trump-hurricane-maria-puerto-rico-death-toll
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-truth-about-hurricane-maria-1537129890

    The root of the issue is how one should count deaths from natural disasters, and what the data mean, and what it can be used for;

    The National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center count only direct deaths—those that can be attributed to the effects of the weather like flood drownings or flying debris, for example. Weather experts also look at and separately list indirect deaths, like automobile accidents, electrocutions, and carbon monoxide poisonings from power generators. Typically, emergency management agencies follow the same model and they are the ones who brief politicians, so typically politicians are used to looking at disaster deaths the same way. This is the accepted way to determine disaster related deaths. Has been for a long damn time.

    Now, the governor of Puerto Rico wanted to look at what happened, and why, and what coulda, woulda, shoulda, been done to avoid those deaths. Also, the governor wanted to make sure the death count was accurate, cause, you know, Federal funds.
    Enter George Washington University.
    The stated purpose of their study was;
    1) assess the excess total mortality adjusting for demographic variables and seasonality, report a point estimate and confidence interval and make recommendations; 2) evaluate the implementation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for mortality reporting in disasters and
    identify areas of opportunity for improvement; and 3) assess crisis and mortality communication plans and actions by the government as well as understand experiences and perceptions of key participant groups to make recommendations based on communications best practices.​

    Note, the study started with the premise that "excess mortality" was a given. In everyday speak, this means "the 64 deaths figure is low"

    Now. The study (it was a statistical study, not a count of bodies) looked at deaths from September, 2017 to February 2018, measured the difference from 2010 to 2017, and came up with a number. Then, they looked at death certificates, talked to medical examiners and doctors to determine how they listed deaths, and looked at emergency procedures to see how they match with other similar areas.

    This is not the accepted method to determine deaths from disasters. In fact, this method has never been used before in determining deaths from disasters.

    In very simple terms, the reason we get two radically different numbers is that
    1) the weather service and hurricane center count bodies and those missing and presumed dead, and add in some deaths after the storm if they can demonstrably be tied to the disaster.
    2) The George Washington study set out to answer the question; "how many people would not have died if the storm had not happened." They used statistical models, average mortality before and after the storm (their selected dates, by the way have been debated at length) and estimates of how "accurate" health officials were in coding death certificates.

    Two different methodologies. Two different purposes. The distinction is one for academics and bureaucrats doling out Federal money.

    Politicians of course jump on these two figures and make political hay from it. Pundits do what pundits do; sensationalize and attack or defend.

    President Trump, in one of his infamous tweets said; “3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico,”

    Which the politicians and pundits jumped on, you know, cause ......... Trump and have been shaking it like a terrier with a toy ever since.

    Which is also why Shooter said in his earlier post;
    There are valid arguments for both positions. That does not make President Trump an idiot, delusional, or mentally ill.

    Except to unsupporters. For them, anything they can drum up............

    Now. Shooter has taken time to respond to your attack and he thinks he has been quite civil. Let Shooter ask you a question;
    Do you think the politicians and pundits have given President Trump a fair reporting of the facts here, and has it been productive?

    Shooter, for his part, thinks this entire mess really only supports one conclusion;
    Figures never lie, but liars figure.
     
    1. imported__2355
      Yes, I read it. How else would I know where to find it?
      Explains a lot about Trump.
       
      imported__2355, Sep 17, 2018
      submissively speaking likes this.
  7. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    Yes I think the politicians and pundits are being fair to Trump compared to Trump saying he is the real victim and it's all a plot by the Democrats to make him look bad
     
    1. shootersa
      Well, Shooter didn't ask you general, but since you want into the discussion, exactly how have politicians and pundits been fair to Trump?
       
      shootersa, Sep 17, 2018
    2. imported__2355
      Trump had his shot at fairness during the first months of his presidency, when people thought he would start growing into the job and leaving the tweeter phone behind. That never happened and the media got tired of waiting for it.
       
      imported__2355, Sep 17, 2018
  8. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    Politicians and pundits have been fair to Trump be accurately reporting what he says and does .
     
    1. imported__2355
      What?! You think telling the truth is fair? Not in Trumpworld.
       
      imported__2355, Sep 17, 2018
  9. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,274
    .... accurately reporting what he says and does....
    Bullshit
     
  10. conroe4

    conroe4 Lake Lover In XNXX Heaven

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,760
    Politicians, pundits, and the media have been THE MOST UNFAIR toward Trump in all our history. Jesus.
     
  11. Sanity_is_Relative

    Sanity_is_Relative Porn Star

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    18,964
    [​IMG]
    This is how afraid Cruz is of Beto, he is resorting to scaring people into sending him money by using fake summonses.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    1. submissively speaking
      Jeeezus.
       
      stumbler likes this.
  12. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    Willie Nelson laughs at conservatives on The View for suddenly being outraged by his support of Democrats

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/wi...y-being-outraged-by-his-support-of-democrats/
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    Tightening Texas race boosts Democrats’ hopes of taking Senate: Reuters poll

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/ti...s-democrats-hopes-taking-senate-reuters-poll/
     
  14. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    New data: Democrats crushing Republicans in 2018 elections
    Note: The 2018 data is preliminary through Sept. 12 and excludes runoffs, special elections and candidates who ran unopposed. Prior data includes unopposed candidates if they were on the ballot. Louisiana will hold their party primaries on Nov. 6 followed by a general election on Dec. 8; Data: Federal Election Commission (1998 to 2016) and Associated Press (2018); Chart: Chris Canipe/Axios

    Riding a surge of enthusiasm in opposition to President Trump, more Democrats turned out in the primaries for House elections than Republicans this year — the first time that has happened since 2008.

    Why it matters: 2008 was the last time Democrats won a majority in the House. They lost it in 2010, when Republican primary turnout skyrocketed and Democratic turnout plummeted — the reverse of what's happening now.

    What's next: David Brady, electoral politics expert and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, predicts around a 7% Democratic turnout advantage in November driven by women, and particularly Independent women.

    • Meantime, Republicans are trying to energize their voters, since Republican National Committee polling suggests a majority of Trump voters don't believe Democrats could win the House, per Axios' Jonathan Swan.
    https://www.axios.com/2018-midterm-...ans-4b649497-1573-4e62-a4e2-83190c6eb9ee.html
     
  15. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,274
    Well, what with the sleazy tactics used by Democrats to torpedo the Kavanaugh nomination, the continuing attacks on President Trump in the face of his success as President, the ongoing Democratic tactic of attacking voters (did they learn nothing in the 2016 election?) and their endless spew of the Trump/Russian thingy with even now no proof of collusion, it is beginning to look like Democrats just might snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in the mid terms.
     
  16. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    Things sure do look to rosey from inside a plastic bubble. But sure don't have anything to do with reality.

    Such as Kavanaugh's 36% approval rating or Trumps not being much higher.

    And what will be the biggest factor of all in this coming election; women.
     
  17. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    81,274
    Good!
    Shooter loves women!
    [​IMG]

    But Shooter thinks the biggest factor is going to be the economy.
    Which does not bode well for Democrats.
     
  18. Sanity_is_Relative

    Sanity_is_Relative Porn Star

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    18,964
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    104,171
    Ok now this is bad. REALLY BAD. Because one of the main issues Republicans wanted to run on is to run against Nancy Pelosi Because they don't really have anything else they can run on.

    Internal RNC poll shows Pelosi is more popular than Trump: report



    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...-poll-shows-pelosi-is-more-popular-than-trump