Jeff Robbins started off his op-ed piece today with the headline "Romney, Vindman amount the best America can be"

I didn't read much of his piece because for fear I would OD on his lies.

It was particularly ironic that he complains about President Trump's "juvenile insults" while his piece is full of petty sniping.

I hope Jeff Robbins is a better lawyer than writer.

Occassionally I read an op-ed writer in the Boston Herald (Joyce Ferriabough Bolling).  Well, to be blunt, I occasionally start to read her piece but quickly have my fill of her lies, BS, and liberal crap (sorry to repeat myself).

She claims Pelosi "dramatically tore up the president's speech" and "it may have seemed crass to some but I applauded her" - that pretty much tell you how open minded she it.

<sigh>

Anyone have thoughts?

None of them were particularly good.  However, I did like the groundhog day ad using Bill Murray.

Bloomberg's ad was, of course, crap (no surprise)

Compare/Contrast how the clinton impeachment articles were provided to the Senate with how the democrats delivered the President Trump impeachment articles:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/15/bill-clinton-house-delivers-impeachment-articles-senate-1998-newday-vpx.cnn

Go ahead, defend pelosi and the rest of those despicable oxygen thieves.  (too subtle?)

In today's paper I saw a Tribune News Service article about a new perk some companies are offering:  paid time off when adopting a pet, albeit a one-time perk.

I love pets, especially dogs, but words fail me...

https://apnews.com/21f4a92a2dfbc38581719664bdf6f38e

"The admission by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard undermined the credibility of information provided by senior officials.."

That's quite the understatement. 

For kicks and giggles (not really, but I think some might get the point), compare and contrast the documentation requirements for a Real ID and any attempts at voter ID.

Reading most of the articles about the shooting at a Texas church, you see statements early in the article that parishioners shot and killed a gunman.  Buried in the article you'll eventually be able to see that the gunman was shot in self-defense.

It's always "store owners kills so-and-so" (when the store owner is protecting himself and other customers).  And similar type of headlines.

It's as if "journalists" have an extreme adversion to admitting that people can legitimately defend themselves using firearms.