Tag Archives: French

Last Night’s "Marcobot Moment" May Have Ruined a Political Career

by WendellCoffee Posted on February 7, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I was out to dinner last night—the duck at Il Fornaio was great!—so I missed the Republican debate. That was too bad, because apparently the highlight of the night was Chris Christie’s brutal beatdown of Marco Rubio over precisely the point I made a few days ago. Here’s my version:

To me he seems like a robot: he’s memorized a whole bunch of virtual index cards, and whenever you ask a question he performs a database search and recites whatever comes up. The index cards aren’t bad, mind you, and I suppose they allow him to emulate a dumb person’s notion what a smart person sounds like. This is despite the fact that he normally talks with the same kind of hurried clip employed by nervous eighth graders reading off actual index cards.

This has always been my basic take on Rubio, and it makes me a little puzzled by his appeal among the conservative intelligentsia. But maybe they don’t really care? Maybe they agree with Grover Norquist’s take on the presidency from four years ago:

We don’t need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go….We just need a president to sign this stuff….Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States.

Well, Rubio has the requisite number of working digits, and he’s reliably conservative even if he’s not one of the great thinkers of our age. So maybe it doesn’t matter if he’s a callow empty suit. As long as he signs the stuff that Ryan and McConnell send him, and can give a good speech now and then defending it, he’s aces. At a minimum, though, this requires Rubio to effectively hide his inability to think outside of sound bites. Christie shattered that illusion for good last night when he bluntly pointed out Rubio’s robotic repetition of the exact same puerile talking point within the space of a couple of minutes. Here’s conservative Rubio fan David French:

Marco Rubio’s already-famous exchange with Chris Christie was indeed a brutal moment. I still can’t believe that Rubio went back to the same talking point right after Christie called him on it. Watching it real-time, I honestly wondered if Rubio forgot what he just said. When he started to do the same thing a third time, I couldn’t believe my ears. Christie wasn’t masterful — not by any means — Rubio just served him the worst kind of hanging curve.

French compared this to Rick Perry’s famous “Oops” gaffe from 2012. James Fallows called it the “most self-destructive debate performance since Quayle ’88.” Social media immediately branded it the “Marcobot” moment, and mashups of the Rubio/Christie exchange showed up everywhere. Here’s the edited transcript:

RUBIO: And let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world….

RUBIO: But I would add this. Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is trying to change this country. He wants America to become more like the rest of the world….

CHRISTIE: That’s what Washington, D.C. Does. The drive-by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him. See Marco, the thing is this. When you’re president of the United States, when you’re a governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn’t solve one problem for one person.

RUBIO: Here’s the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

CHRISTIE: There it is. There it is. The memorized 25-second speech. There it is, everybody….It gets very unruly when he gets off his talking points….

RUBIO an hour later: I think anyone who believes that Barack Obama isn’t doing what he’s doing on purpose doesn’t understand what we’re dealing with here, OK? This is a president who is trying to change this country.

So there you have it: the exact same canned line three times in a row. And then, even after being called on it in humiliating fashion, he repeats it yet again for a fourth time an hour later.

Will this hurt Rubio? If he’s smart, he’ll own it. He’ll make it the centerpiece of his campaign going forward, sort of like “Make America great again.” Unfortunately, now that Christie has pointed out Rubio’s index-card habit, everyone is going to be looking for it on every other subject too. Reporters will be combing through his debates and stump speeches looking for canned talking points, and then doing side-by-side comparisons as if he’s an author being accused of plagiarism.

We’ll see how this plays out. But it sure can’t be good news for ol’ Marcobot. He might need to think about getting an upgrade to his programming.

Link: 

Last Night’s "Marcobot Moment" May Have Ruined a Political Career

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Last Night’s "Marcobot Moment" May Have Ruined a Political Career

Here Is Today’s French Fiscal Horsepower History Lesson

by CandyTobias Posted on February 7, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

No one is going to care about this post. Too bad. I feel like writing, and on a weekend you take what you can get.

Anyway, I was musing the other day about the fact that I’ve always owned foreign cars. Partly this is just chance, partly the fact that I live in California, and, I suppose, partly because my parents always owned foreign cars. The first one was purchased around the time of my birth, and we kids called it the bye-bye, for reasons I presumably don’t have to explain. It was, as it happens, a Renault. But which Renault?

I did a bit of lazy googling last night, but nothing looked quite right. Then this morning, I noticed one of those Fiat 500s that J-Lo hawks on TV, and thought that it looked a little like the old Renault. Except I was sure the Renault had vents in the rear.

But wait. Rear vents means a rear engine. So I googled that, and instantly got a million hits for the 4CV, which was clearly the old bye-bye. My mother confirmed this telephonically a bit later. And that got me curious. Citroën, of course, produced the iconic 2CV, which first came off the assembly line at about the same time. What’s with that? What’s the appeal of __CV to postwar French auto manufacturers?

The answer turned out to be pretty funky. CV stands for chevaux vapeur, or horsepower. But the 4CV is not a 4-horsepower car. CV, it turns out, is used to mean tax horsepower. After World War II, France (along with other European countries) wanted to encourage people to buy low-power cars, so they put a tax on horsepower. But just taxing horsepower would have been too simple. Instead, they used a formula that took into account the number of cylinders, the piston bore, and the stroke. Here’s the formula for the 4CV:

These numbers were undoubtedly carefully engineered to produce the highest result that would round down to 4. In fact, the 4CV had a whopping 17 horsepower, and could get to 60 mph in just under 40 seconds. Ours had a few wee problems chugging along at 6,000 feet in Flagstaff on the way to Denver in 1960, but what can you expect for 17 horsepower?

So that’s your history lesson for the day. Apparently the French tax the horsepower of cars to this day, though the formula has changed over time. According to Wikipedia, “Since 1998 the taxable power is calculated from the sum of a CO2 emission figure (over 45), and the maximum power output of the engine in kilowatts (over 40) to the power of 1.6.” The power of 1.6? I guess they still love a little pointless complexity in France.

Link: 

Here Is Today’s French Fiscal Horsepower History Lesson

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here Is Today’s French Fiscal Horsepower History Lesson

Photoshop Use Is Now Regulated in France

by RoryEubank84 Posted on December 23, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This is interesting:

In France last week, a bill was signed into law requiring that models show their employers a doctor’s note certifying they’re of a healthy weight….The statute also demands that magazines explicitly indicate any photographs that have been altered with an editing program, like Photoshop.

….Studies have shown that, out of all Western Europeans, French women have the lowest BMI, at 23.2. With 11 percent of French women considered “extremely thin,” the government has spent the better part of 2015 trying to curb its anorexia epidemic. In March, the country passed legislation criminalizing “pro-anorexia” and “thinspiration” websites, promising to slap perpetrators with a €10,000 fine ($10,800) and one year in prison.

France isn’t the first country to impose such a law. In 2012, Israel banished too-thin models from starring in advertisement photos. Similar measures were undertaken in Spain and Italy in 2006, where underweight models are now prohibited from walking the catwalk in fashion shows.

I knew about the new law in France that requires a doctor’s note for models, but I had no idea about the rest of this stuff. The Photoshop thing is certainly intriguing. I wonder if French fashion magazines will start putting notices on every photo, or if they can get away with a single big warning in the Table of Contents?

Read this article:  

Photoshop Use Is Now Regulated in France

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Photoshop Use Is Now Regulated in France

Explained in 90 Seconds: Here’s Why You Should Be Hopeful About the Paris Climate Deal

by GretaCenteno Posted on December 9, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday afternoon at the massive global climate summit in Paris, diplomats unveiled a new draft (PDF) of the document they hope will save the world from global warming. After a week and a half of chipping away at the agreement, it’s considerably shorter—in fact, it’s about half the length it was just a couple of days ago. That’s a good sign that some points of contention are getting resolved, and that the prospects for an agreed-upon final draft are better than ever. Word around the campfire here is that the conference could wrap on time—by the end of Friday—which would be virtually unprecedented in the 20-year history of global climate talks.

The new draft dropped just minutes after Secretary of State John Kerry gave his strongest speech in Paris so far, telling world leaders that the United States wants to get even more ambitious over the next couple of days. He said that the United States would join the European Union and dozens of developing nations in the “High Ambition Coalition,” a group that has emerged since the weekend and hopes to achieve many of the key goals sought by climate activists.

To that end, Kerry also said the United States will double the amount of cash it makes available to vulnerable countries that are already hit hard by climate change impacts. The number is still pretty small—just $861 million by 2020—but it’s likely to be the last olive branch the United States extends as the talks approach their conclusion and Republicans in Congress continue to hammer President Barack Obama’s climate agenda.

“The situation demands—and this moment demands—that we do not leave Paris without an ambitious, inclusive, and durable global climate agreement,” Kerry said. “Our aim can be nothing less than a steady transformation of the global economy.”

Whether the Paris accord will actually make that happen is still far from certain. Everyone here acknowledges that there’s no chance the agreement will limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the threshold that world leaders agreed to at the last major summit in 2009. (Some players here, especially the small island nations, are adamant that even that amount is far too high.) Instead, the object of this document is to require countries to ramp up their climate goals over time, most likely every five years. That appears to be the best chance we have of staving off the worst impacts of climate change.

“Everything that happens in Paris should be an enabling mechanism for future ambition,” said Derek Walker,* associate vice president of global climate at the Environmental Defense Fund. “Paris has to be a catalyst. It’s in no way, shape, or form a final chapter.”

At this stage, it seems highly likely that that kind of periodic review will take place. But there’s still a lot of ambiguity about what exactly that will look like. How will the international community actually enforce its climate goals? Could there be sanctions, independent investigative review boards, or some other system? In his statement, Kerry’s view on these questions was muddled.

“No one is forced to do more than what is possible,” he said. “There’s no punishment, no penalty, but there has to be oversight.” Even though each country’s individual greenhouse gas reduction targets won’t be legally binding, “that doesn’t mean a country can get away with doing nothing or next to nothing.”

Huh.

That’s just one of perhaps a dozen major questions that remain on the table for Kerry and his peers, said Jake Schmidt, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. One of the most significant is climate finance, i.e., how wealthy countries will help poorer countries pay for climate change adaptation and clean energy development. Most negotiators agree that there needs to be an annual minimum of $100 billion raised collectively toward this end. But should that specific number be in the legally binding agreement? The US delegation doesn’t want it to be, Schmidt said, because of the added pressure that could create on the country to cough up more cash. How, exactly, should the figure be increased over time, if at all? How, exactly, should it be divided between the United States, the European Union, and other wealthy players? Those questions remain on the table.

Three options for climate finance in the latest draft agreement

Still, the atmosphere here is decidedly optimistic (if a bit bleary eyed and frazzled). There appear to be no fights about basic negotiation procedure questions, which have bogged down previous summits. There appear to be no negotiators who think the whole document is totally unnecessary, or a total sham. All the highest-ranking officials seem doggedly committed to not leaving Paris without some kind of agreement to take home.

Now they just have about 36 hours to finally agree on what it should say. This afternoon, French officials said negotiators should be prepared for consecutive all-nighters. The conference center is sprinkled with nap couches and is liberally stocked with baguette sandwiches, coffee, and wine.

“I think our sense is that almost everything we need for an ambitious agreement is still in play,” said Jennifer Morgan, director of global climate programs at the World Resources Institute. “But there is an immense amount of work to be done in the coming hours.”

*Name corrected

Source article: 

Explained in 90 Seconds: Here’s Why You Should Be Hopeful About the Paris Climate Deal

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Explained in 90 Seconds: Here’s Why You Should Be Hopeful About the Paris Climate Deal

Obama: We Got This. Enjoy Thanksgiving.

by MarcyFarley Posted on November 25, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Heading into the long holiday weekend, President Barack Obama assured the country Wednesday afternoon that there is no imminent threat of a terrorist attack and urged Americans to enjoy the Thanksgiving festivities.

“Right now, we know of no specific and credible intelligence indicating a plot on the homeland,” Obama said in a speech in the White House, following his meetings with French President François Hollande. Further, he promised that “in the event of a specific, credible threat, the public will be informed.”

Nearly two weeks after the ISIS attack on Paris on November 13, Obama stressed that the US military and intelligence community are doing everything they can to prevent an attack in the United States. National security and intelligence professionals “are working overtime,” the president said. “They are constantly working to protect all of us.”

So, Obama concluded, “Americans should go about their usual Thanksgiving weekend activities”—and “Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.”

See more here:  

Obama: We Got This. Enjoy Thanksgiving.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Hoffman, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: We Got This. Enjoy Thanksgiving.

Yes, Donald Trump Agreed That We Should Have a National Registry of Muslims

by Eddy7270gg Posted on November 21, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I was arguing on Twitter with Mickey Kaus last night about the Trump Muslim registry story, and today he’s touting a Byron York piece about how the “Trump database story was built on a foundation of nothing.” But that’s not fair. The whole thing started when Yahoo’s Hunter Walker asked Trump about Syrian refugees. York asked Walker for audio of the interview, which he provided. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

WALKER: France declared this state of emergency where they closed the borders and they established some degree of warrantless searches. I know how you feel about the borders, but do you think there is some kind of state of emergency here, and do we need warrantless searches of Muslims?

TRUMP: Well, we’re going to have to do things that we never did before. Blah blah blah But we have to err on the side of security for our people and our nation.

WALKER: And in terms of doing this, to pull off the kind of tracking we need, do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?

TRUMP: Well, we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely….

When I first read Walker’s story, I concluded that he had been on a fishing expedition. I still think that, but this transcript actually softens my objections. The first question is reasonably motivated by the French response to the Paris attacks, and Trump makes it clear that he’s willing to go pretty far to deal with the ISIS threat. So Walker takes the bait and goes further. Trump then tap dances and never really addresses the question about registries.

So far, though, the most you can do is criticize Trump for not immediately denouncing the registry proposal. But he’s now on notice. Headlines began appearing about this, and it was a big topic of discussion on Thursday. After the Yahoo story hit, Trump could no longer pretend to be taken by surprise if someone asked again about registering Muslims. And sure enough, MSNBC’s Vaughn Hillyard did. Here’s the transcript:

Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?

Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it.

Some talk about Trump’s wall on the Mexican border ensues.

Trump: We have to stop people from coming in to our country illegally.

Hillyard: But specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?

Trump: It would be just good management….

Hillyard: Do you go to mosques and sign these people up?

Trump: Different places. You sign ‘em up at different, but it’s all about management. Our country has no management.

Hillyard: Would they have to legally be in this database, would they be–

Trump: They have to be — they have to be — let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much.

This is pretty plain. Sure, Trump is at a ropeline and he’s distracted. But he knows the registry issue is a live question, and Hillyard is very clear about what he’s asking. There’s some confusion in the middle about whether Trump is talking about a Muslim registry or a wall on the Mexican border, but there’s no confusion at all when Hillyard asks “Do you go to mosques and sign people up?” And York himself agrees:

Trump’s offhand decision to tell MSNBC he would implement a database was an enormously stupid thing to do. And by Friday afternoon, Trump tweeted, “I didn’t suggest a database — a reporter did. We must defeat Islamic terrorism & have surveillance, including a watch list, to protect America.”

But the damage had been done. In the end, the responsibility is always the candidate’s to be on guard for attempts, by journalists or rival campaign operatives, to entice him into saying damaging things.

So was the Muslim registry story built on a foundation of nothing? Sure, in a way. But reporters ask hypothetical questions all the time. This is hardly a startling new technique. What’s more, Trump has built his entire campaign on saying things outrageous enough to get lots of media attention. But now he’s complaining that a reporter gave him a chance to say something outrageous and it generated a lot of media attention? Give me a break.

As York says, Trump has since backtracked on Twitter: “I didn’t suggest a database-a reporter did.” True enough. But Trump pretty obviously agreed. This wasn’t a gotcha or a cleverly loaded question. It was obvious what both reporters were talking about. The first time he tap danced. The second time he agreed. Trump is a grown man who’s accustomed to dealing with the press. There was nothing unfair about this. He may have backtracked now, but he thought it sounded like a fine idea until the blowback became a little too intense.

Visit link:

Yes, Donald Trump Agreed That We Should Have a National Registry of Muslims

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes, Donald Trump Agreed That We Should Have a National Registry of Muslims

Watch: Obama’s Top Environmental Official on the Paris Attacks and Why Climate Change Threatens National Security

by ChauSopervwxed Posted on November 18, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

With a major global climate summit in Paris less than two weeks away, the Obama administration’s top environmental official is saying that climate change is a major threat to US national security.

“There are a variety of impacts that we’re feeling from a changing climate, and we need to stop those impacts from escalating by failing to take action—one of those is instability,” said Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in an interview Tuesday with Climate Desk. McCarthy pointed to drought and wildfires in California as examples of climate impacts that can displace people from their homes, and she noted that many of the same things are happening in less stable parts of the world. You can watch portions of the interview above.

“We can see that underlying issues in many countries that lead to animosity, and then can lead to conflict,” she said. “So it is a national security issue for us, as well as an issue that’s incredibly important for our local communities.”

McCarthy’s comments join a growing chorus of experts who see a direct link between global warming and national security. The debate over that theory seems likely to intensify over the next few weeks, in part because the Paris climate negotiations follow closely on the heels of Friday’s terrorist attacks that left 129 people dead in the French capital.

Just days before the Paris attacks, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech in which he called climate change “a threat to the security of the United States.” On Saturday, Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders said that “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.” President Barack Obama has made a similar point several times, as have numerous security experts and defense officials. (Donald Trump is skeptical.)

After the attacks, French officials were quick to confirm that the climate summit—which is meant to yield a groundbreaking international agreement to slow climate change—would go on, albeit with scaled-back public events and heightened security. President Obama is expected to attend, along with White House negotiators. McCarthy has not yet said whether she will be there, and while her agency isn’t responsible for conducting the core negotiations, she still has a vital role to play in convincing other countries that the United States is serious about climate action.

The US negotiating position—Obama has promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025—hinges largely on the Clean Power Plan, a new set of EPA regulations on emissions from power plants that was largely crafted under McCarthy. The plan itself cites national security as a justification for taking action on global warming. “Impacts of climate change on public welfare also include threats to social and ecosystem services…these impacts are global and may exacerbate problems outside the US that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the US,” it states.

The EPA plan has come under heavy fire since the Clean Power Plan was finalized in August. A coalition of two dozen coal-dependent states are attempting to block the plan court, and on Tuesday the Senate passed a pair of resolutions to overturn the plan. Those resolutions face a certain veto from Obama.

McCarthy said she is “very confident” the plan will survive all these challenges. But since it forms the legal basis for the US commitment in Paris, McCarthy said her staff has been in contact with their counterparts in other countries in an effort to assure them that they can count on the US to follow through.

“We’re moving forward, and we try to make people understand that,” McCarthy said. The Clean Power Plan is “a signal of the seriousness of the United States and this president, and the fact that we are going to be driving reductions down that other countries can count on, so they can come to the table and also contribute.”

Link: 

Watch: Obama’s Top Environmental Official on the Paris Attacks and Why Climate Change Threatens National Security

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch: Obama’s Top Environmental Official on the Paris Attacks and Why Climate Change Threatens National Security

Anonymous Pianist Plays John Lennon’s "Imagine" Outside Paris’ Bataclan Concert Hall

by SoonSymon808607 Posted on November 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This is really moving.

Original link: 

Anonymous Pianist Plays John Lennon’s "Imagine" Outside Paris’ Bataclan Concert Hall

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anonymous Pianist Plays John Lennon’s "Imagine" Outside Paris’ Bataclan Concert Hall

Watch Thousands of Parisians Respond to the Terrorist Attacks in the Best Way Possible

by Felixct7yh Posted on November 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As Paris’ “night of terror” unfolded, thousands of soccer fans were ordered to evacuate the Stade de France, where France was playing Germany—and near where at least one explosion had erupted.

A video posted to Facebook shows these soccer fans joining in unison to sing the French national anthem. Some could be seen waving the French flag, as the exiting crowd cheered in defiance of the tragic attacks still taking place throughout the city.

(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)0; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

Dans un tunnel de sortie du Stade de France, sortie dans le calme…. Et la Marseillaise. #fier

Posted by

Karl Olive on Friday, November 13, 2015

(h/t Mashable)

Visit site: 

Watch Thousands of Parisians Respond to the Terrorist Attacks in the Best Way Possible

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Thousands of Parisians Respond to the Terrorist Attacks in the Best Way Possible

Here Are the Most Horrible Tweets About the Paris Tragedy

by BethanyKier Posted on November 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here are some of the worst reactions we’ve seen so far to the tragedy in Paris. Follow our breaking news reporting on the attacks here.

Donald J. Trump had retweeted this one.

Visit source:  

Here Are the Most Horrible Tweets About the Paris Tragedy

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here Are the Most Horrible Tweets About the Paris Tragedy