That's your argument, name calling? Wow, we're all bowled over by your facts and the power of your persuasion.

“According to John Dickerson of Time magazine, the White House later conceded that they hung the banner but still insists it had been done at the request of the crew members.^[10]”

Try to stay focused: when Mr. Obama answers the question as poorly as Mr. Trump did we can discuss him. In the meantime you’re deflecting (which telegraphs your own discomfort with what Mr. Trump said, whether you are willing to admit it or not).

That’s right, journalists informing their audience of a candidates’ shortcomings is just petty high school popularity stuff —much more fun to wait and learn of their deficiencies in realtime when the new president’s incompetence gives us a smoking crater in lower Manhattan, thousands maimed or killed in an…

In one of Carl Sagan’s books he writes of a medieval showman who would have his horse solve a crowd’s mathematics questions by stamping out the answer with his hoof.

Most of what I said above to Jimmy Joe applies equally to you. You can close your eyes and ears and pretend that the emperor wasn't laid naked if you want, but if the article "said nothing" it's only because most of it was a direct quote from your glorious fuhrer's mouth.

What a load of cognitive-dissonant crap.