PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on February 14, 2017, 07:54:12 AM
-
You may or may not agree with Bill O'Reilly, but this talking points memo is dead on.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5322198152001/?#sp=show-clips
-
Indeed it is.
-
This is a great example of a few things. First, it illustrates the ridiculous sensationalism that my side has been exhibiting.
Second, it illustrates how the sensationalism is not relegated to one side. In point of fact, his suggestion that no one was talking about Obama's record number of deportations is probably false.
Apparently there is plenty of stunning dishonesty going around. We need a vaccine, it's catching.
-
Second, it illustrates how the sensationalism is not relegated to one side. In point of fact, his suggestion that no one was talking about Obama's record number of deportations is probably false.
Provide the links where the MSM covered the Obama deportations. I follow the news regularly and I don't recall it being covered (mainstream).
-
Provide the links where the MSM covered the Obama deportations. I follow the news regularly and I don't recall it being covered (mainstream).
No desire to do your Google searches for you.
-
No desire to do your Google searches for you.
Thanks for confirming the obvious.
-
Thanks for confirming the obvious.
That you can't be bothered to do even a modicum of research (and I hesitate to call it that, since all it took was a single Google search) before accepting what your side is feeding you? You're welcome.
-
That you can't be bothered to do even a modicum of research (and I hesitate to call it that, since all it took was a single Google search) before accepting what your side is feeding you? You're welcome.
You can't be bothered backing up your ridiculous assertion that the MSM bothered to cover the Obama deportations. They didn't, not anywhere near the level of what they are doing to Trump. And they're not even remotely being honest about it.
Bill O'Reilly does impeccable research. Why don't you point out where he is wrong?
-
You can't be bothered backing up your ridiculous assertion that the MSM bothered to cover the Obama deportations. They didn't, not anywhere near the level of what they are doing to Trump. And they're not even remotely being honest about it.
Bill O'Reilly does impeccable research. Why don't you point out where he is wrong?
Oh for fuck's sake. Who do you think I am? I refuse your attempt at weaseling out of this with your "not anywhere near the level" comment. So allow me to MSM you:
WashPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html
Reuters: http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2015/02/25/tracking-obamas-deportation-numbers/
NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/24/167970002/obama-administration-deported-record-1-5-million-people
PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/
ABC New: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/us/more-deportations-follow-minor-crimes-data-shows.html?_r=0
NY Times again: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/us/low-priority-immigrants-still-swept-up-in-net-of-deportation.html
And just for giggles, here's La Raza calling Obama "Deporter in Chief": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNHWvqIjk9M
And here's a Politico article that followed: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/national-council-of-la-raza-janet-murguia-barack-obama-deporter-in-chief-immigration-104217#ixzz4NevjS8qj
--
Look for a bill in the mail.
-
Provide the links where the MSM covered the Obama deportations. I follow the news regularly and I don't recall it being covered (mainstream).
(Pilot spin alerted me that asechrest had already posted a link with MSM stories, but I'm not going to edit my post to remove any possible duplicates.)
Google search for keywords Obama deportations with a date range prior to Nov 1, 2016 yielded:
Actually a mixed bag. MSM reports calling out Obama "deportations" (new categorization in use since 1996 no longer uses that word):
Feb 7, 2014, The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21595892-barack-obama-has-presided-over-one-largest-peacetime-outflows-people-americas (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21595892-barack-obama-has-presided-over-one-largest-peacetime-outflows-people-americas)
Aug 29, 2016, ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661)
Sep 7, 2012, NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/us/us-deports-record-number-of-foreigners-in-2011.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/us/us-deports-record-number-of-foreigners-in-2011.html)
Mar 24, 2014, NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/us/politics/deportation-policy-shift-is-signaled-by-obama.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=1 (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/us/politics/deportation-policy-shift-is-signaled-by-obama.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=1)
Jan 27, 2014, PBS News Hour:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-tops-its-own-deportation-record/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-tops-its-own-deportation-record/)
May 13, 2016, The HILL:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/279893-dems-hammer-white-house-over-deportation-reports (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/279893-dems-hammer-white-house-over-deportation-reports)
July 26, 2010, Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html)
BUT there were articles written that were defensive or intended to down-play the Obama policies:
Apr 21, 2014, Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.913827b54e31 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.913827b54e31)
Apr 1, 2014, LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html)
Apr 17, 2014, New Republic:
https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants (https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants)
-
Oh for fuck's sake. Who do you think I am? I refuse your attempt at weaseling out of this with your "not anywhere near the level" comment. So allow me to MSM you:
WashPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html
Reuters: http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2015/02/25/tracking-obamas-deportation-numbers/
NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/24/167970002/obama-administration-deported-record-1-5-million-people
PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/
ABC New: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/us/more-deportations-follow-minor-crimes-data-shows.html?_r=0
NY Times again: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/us/low-priority-immigrants-still-swept-up-in-net-of-deportation.html
And just for giggles, here's La Raza calling Obama "Deporter in Chief": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNHWvqIjk9M
And here's a Politico article that followed: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/national-council-of-la-raza-janet-murguia-barack-obama-deporter-in-chief-immigration-104217#ixzz4NevjS8qj
--
You're right, I missed all of the news coverage 24/7 on ABC CBS CNN MSNBC NBC telling us how Obama was sending in "deportation crews" and "kicking down doors" to deport maids, honest hard working immigrants and breaking up families. I also missed the endless videos of all the protesters in the streets protesting Obamas actions. Oh, and I missed the video of Chuck Schumer with tears streaming down his face telling us how cruel Obama was for doing this.
-
You're right, I missed all of the news coverage 24/7 on ABC CBS CNN MSNBC NBC telling us how Obama was sending in "deportation crews" and "kicking down doors" to deport maids, honest hard working immigrants and breaking up families. I also missed the endless videos of all the protesters in the streets protesting Obamas actions. Oh, and I missed the video of Chuck Schumer with tears streaming down his face telling us how cruel Obama was for doing this.
Is the irony in the O'Reilly clip lost on you? Calling out dishonesty, and then engaging in it. I'm not interested in a equivalence battle. O'Reilly could have just said what was true, instead of using the same tactic he is lambasting others for.
My comment stands:
This is a great example of a few things. First, it illustrates the ridiculous sensationalism that my side has been exhibiting.
Second, it illustrates how the sensationalism is not relegated to one side. In point of fact, his suggestion that no one was talking about Obama's record number of deportations is provably false.
Apparently there is plenty of stunning dishonesty going around. We need a vaccine, it's catching.
-
I did read articles about Obama's deportations. I even read that he had deported more illegals than any other President.
The difference is that almost all of the articles I read about Obama's deportations were factual and supportive. (No, I'm not saying "factual" is bad). But when it comes to Trump, they report it in a highly negative light. I read an article the other day where they dug up some Syrian doctor in North Dakota and reported all about his grave concerns. I read several other recent articles where they find some obscure hardship case and make it sound like Trump is targeting the downtrodden. But even most of the people they reported on that had concerns also admitted that they understood the reason for it.
Again, they did report it to some degree under Obama. But not as prominently, vigorously or viciously as they report on Trump.
And one final point. Why was the press, and the Democratic faithful, ok with it when Obama did it, but they are outraged when Trump does it?
Can you say "partisan media"?
-
Is the irony in the O'Reilly clip lost on you? Calling out dishonesty, and then engaging in it. I'm not interested in a equivalence battle. O'Reilly could have just said what was true, instead of using the same tactic he is lambasting others for.
No irony at all, he makes his case.
My comment stands:
As does mine. ::)
-
No irony at all, he makes his case.
As does mine. ::)
I can admit when "my side" is wrong, as I have done so in this thread. You can't admit you or your side were wrong even when presented with the evidence that it is so. O'Reilly says it wasn't reported, you said you didn't recall it being reported. I provided the reports. /fin
-
I did read articles about Obama's deportations. I even read that he had deported more illegals than any other President.
The difference is that almost all of the articles I read about Obama's deportations were factual and supportive. (No, I'm not saying "factual" is bad). But when it comes to Trump, they report it in a highly negative light. I read an article the other day where they dug up some Syrian doctor in North Dakota and reported all about his grave concerns. I read several other recent articles where they find some obscure hardship case and make it sound like Trump is targeting the downtrodden. But even most of the people they reported on that had concerns also admitted that they understood the reason for it.
Again, they did report it to some degree under Obama. But not as prominently, vigorously or viciously as they report on Trump.
And one final point. Why was the press, and the Democratic faithful, ok with it when Obama did it, but they are outraged when Trump does it?
Can you say "partisan media"?
These are easy answers, Joe. Because partisanship and politics. The Democrats like to be seen as the party of immigrants. When a Democratic president is in power, they downplay even the things they don't like. When a Republican is in power, they go hair-on-fire for the same issue. It's gross but that's American politics. It works both ways, too. Though I think it's relatively clear the MSM favors one side.
-
These are easy answers, Joe. Because partisanship and politics. The Democrats like to be seen as the party of immigrants. When a Democratic president is in power, they downplay even the things they don't like. When a Republican is in power, they go hair-on-fire for the same issue. It's gross but that's American politics. It works both ways, too. Though I think it's relatively clear the MSM favors one side.
This media bias and Dem hypocrisy is now and has been for years causing the erosion of our Republic. If not stopped, destruction and/or civil war will ensue.
Republicans are not innocent, but as is being exposed more each day, the Democrats favor and constantly use hypocrisy, name calling, shouting down, and manipulation of the media to keep power.
It is sickening. The Democrats are all but advocating mob rule. With the smirking, oblique but clearly indicated support of BHO and HRC. Do the liberals care about the safety and prosperity of Americans? No. They care about identity (theirs) and power (theirs).
-
This media bias and Dem hypocrisy is now and has been for years causing the erosion of our Republic. If not stopped, destruction and/or civil war will ensue.
Republicans are not innocent, but as is being exposed more each day, the Democrats favor and constantly use hypocrisy, name calling, shouting down, and manipulation of the media to keep power.
It is sickening. The Democrats are all but advocating mob rule. With the smirking, oblique but clearly indicated support of BHO and HRC. Do the liberals care about the safety and prosperity of Americans? No. They care about identity (theirs) and power (theirs).
No, I don't think so. I'm a relatively young guy but I am imminently aware that people have been predicting the end of our Republic for a very long time. And, generally, they've done so from a perspective that is colored by their own biases. And yet here we stand.
Recognize that your Democratic doppelganger is staring back at you from wayyyy across the aisle. You can see her if you squint hard enough. She's the one posting to the DailyKos suggesting that Trump's rise to power will be the certain death of our Republic.
Which of you is right? I'm betting on neither of you, at least across a reasonable time horizon. And I think my Vegas odds are pretty solid. But I do admit there is a chance that one of you is right, and the end is near. But I doubt it.
-
No, I don't think so. I'm a relatively young guy but I am imminently aware that people have been predicting the end of our Republic for a very long time. And, generally, they've done so from a perspective that is colored by their own biases. And yet here we stand.
Recognize that your Democratic doppelganger is staring back at you from wayyyy across the aisle. You can see her if you squint hard enough. She's the one posting to the DailyKos suggesting that Trump's rise to power will be the certain death of our Republic.
Which of you is right? I'm betting on neither of you, at least across a reasonable time horizon. And I think my Vegas odds are pretty solid. But I do admit there is a chance that one of you is right, and the end is near. But I doubt it.
Disagree. Granted, both perspectives are colored by personal filters. I didn't say the end was near, but that erosion was taking place. And it is. Erosion usually has one end ... destruction of that which is being eroded.
I hope I am wrong.
-
Disagree. Granted, both perspectives are colored by personal filters. I didn't say the end was near, but that erosion was taking place. And it is. Erosion usually has one end ... destruction of that which is being eroded.
I hope I am wrong.
Well, you said destruction or civil war would ensue. I guess I made the incorrect assumption that you meant over a reasonable time frame. If you just meant that destruction or civil war may come at some future date, I can get on board with that, but I think that "media bias and dem hypocrisy" is unlikely to be the proximate cause.
I am on your side with respect to how the Democrats are treating the election of Trump, though. The amount of ridiculous hyperbole being thrown around is insane. As I am typing this, I have just gotten an email on my phone from "Jacky Rosen for Nevada". I have no idea why I am on their mailing list, but they sure are advocating AN INVESTIGATION OF TRUMP BECAUSE JESUS CAN YOU BELIEVE IT RUSSIANS WHAT DID TRUMP KNOW? THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE WE MUST IMPEACH OR WOW IS HIS HAIR REAL?
Sigh. Politics is tiring.
-
Well, you said destruction or civil war would ensue. I guess I made the incorrect assumption that you meant over a reasonable time frame. If you just meant that destruction or civil war may come at some future date, I can get on board with that, but I think that "media bias and dem hypocrisy" is unlikely to be the proximate cause.
I am on your side with respect to how the Democrats are treating the election of Trump, though. The amount of ridiculous hyperbole being thrown around is insane. As I am typing this, I have just gotten an email on my phone from "Jacky Rosen for Nevada". I have no idea why I am on their mailing list, but they sure are advocating AN INVESTIGATION OF TRUMP BECAUSE JESUS CAN YOU BELIEVE IT RUSSIANS WHAT DID TRUMP KNOW? THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE WE MUST IMPEACH OR WOW IS HIS HAIR REAL?
Sigh. Politics is tiring.
Liberal bias in the media and hair-afire screeching and hypocrisy by the left is a real threat to our Republic. If the smooth transition of power desired by HALF THE VOTERS IN A FREE ELECTION can be fought off protractedly with the Left's main weapons, media bias and hyprocrisy and divisiveness, why then yes, the Republic and its safety and security and peacefulness can be destroyed.
Your little e-mail shows how the Left is determined to wear down everyone's patience so we will ... what? Give in? I even saw one liberal trying to get a coalition together to get another election, this time between Ryan and Clinton. What?
Yes, politics is tiring, but only because the Left is metronomically chipping and chipping at the very wheels of government function.
Some say the Left is in an existential crisis and its dying gasps are showing in their screeds and inchoherent rantings. I only hope it is so. They need to die and be reborn in a form that isn't so destructive.
My main fear is that the swamp is undrainable, and that while we are thrashing in it, an enemy will strike.
-
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5324588366001/?#sp=show-clips
-
No, I don't think so. I'm a relatively young guy but I am imminently aware that people have been predicting the end of our Republic for a very long time. And, generally, they've done so from a perspective that is colored by their own biases. And yet here we stand.
If you are relatively young then you do not have the benefit of history. We no longer have a populace dedicated to the preservation of law, we have one dedicated to breaking the law, ignoring laws they don't like and actively supporting the breaking of laws for those on their side. This is not a recipe for a stable Republic, it is one headed for anarchy. The protesors in the streets that are "fighting" against Trump are not just protesters, they are enablers. They validate bad behavior by others.
The new racism is against white conservatives. You don't care and might not believe but that will not lessen your guilt in not stopping it. If you don't believe this, go somewhere that nobody knows you, strike up a conversation with someone on the left and quietly and calmly start explaing the right's position. You are a smart guy, you can pull that off. Stay calm and polite and see what kind of reaction you get. I recommend that it be a relatively public place, for safety reasons.
Seriously - you don't see what is going on because to you it looks "good". But where will it leave you in 10 years?
-
^^^^^This. A large segment of society since the 1960's but really gathering steam in the 70's is the propensity of WHITE GUILT propelled by the media, education, and government. In order to right long gone, "past wrongs" we have becoming crazy with demonizing white people, especially white conservatives, Christians and even moderates who don't bow down to IDENTITY POLITICS, and Man Made Climate Change.
These people want to destroy modern industrialism here in the U.S. yet want their Apple I phones, Apple I Pads, Subarus, and all the other comforts of life. In fact they feel entitled to have these things. THINGS!!!
-
The real truth and crux of these problems lies with liberal academia.
Period.
Steingar lectures us about how hard working and deserving he and his ilk are based on nothing more than ego and projection and he REALLY BELIEVES that he is above being questioned because of his self proclaimed, triple digit IQ.
Academia is infested with lazy, entitled, narrow minded bigots, that truly believe they deserve to rule over us because of their make believe superior intelligence and because they have the right progressive credentials, which are useless and worthless, besides being of no value in the real world.
Public teacher unions are a toxic poison in America and drain education of needed graduates with career skills, in favor of robots, scared to think for fear they will bring down the wrath of loud mouthed nit-wits, who do nothing of value but talk about how deserving they are.
Economic freedom is being reduced day by day because of the garbage Obama appointed who wrote millions of pages of damaging regulations designed to grant power to the government and keep choice out of the hands of those who pay the bills. Steingar and his ilk LOVE it.
The real reason progressive democrats lost heir minds over DeVos was because of school choice. Any choice in the hands of the people is detrimental to the progressive agenda which is really just communism and they will fight to the point of possibly breaking a finger nail to preserve their monopoly on education.
Take liberals out of education and within a generation children will begin to learn and flourish again. Let them stay in power and the march to moronville will escalate.
-
If you are relatively young then you do not have the benefit of history. We no longer have a populace dedicated to the preservation of law, we have one dedicated to breaking the law, ignoring laws they don't like and actively supporting the breaking of laws for those on their side. This is not a recipe for a stable Republic, it is one headed for anarchy. The protesors in the streets that are "fighting" against Trump are not just protesters, they are enablers. They validate bad behavior by others.
The new racism is against white conservatives. You don't care and might not believe but that will not lessen your guilt in not stopping it. If you don't believe this, go somewhere that nobody knows you, strike up a conversation with someone on the left and quietly and calmly start explaing the right's position. You are a smart guy, you can pull that off. Stay calm and polite and see what kind of reaction you get. I recommend that it be a relatively public place, for safety reasons.
Seriously - you don't see what is going on because to you it looks "good". But where will it leave you in 10 years?
Your veiled Holier Than Thou attitude is not appreciated. Let's agree on something: you don't know me. If you want to know whether the goings on look "good" to me, you should probably ask. If you want to know whether I have challenged Liberal positions amongst Liberals, you should probably ask.
The suggestion that you can't learn from history without having lived it is dubious. So is an assertion that "the populace" is now dedicated to breaking or ignoring laws. Half the electorate voted for Trump. That's a lot of the populace. Another large chunk of the populace purposely voted not-Hillary. That's a lot of people. A further huge chunk of the populace couldn't give two shits about politics, and just want to live their lives. A very vocal, very publicized group of people are freaking out about Trump. But a nation of anarchy this is not.
Conservatives now control the White House and both houses of Congress. Time to quit whining, ignore or handle the Left's freak out, and get stuff done.
-
Your veiled Holier Than Thou attitude is not appreciated. Let's agree on something: you don't know me. If you want to know whether the goings on look "good" to me, you should probably ask. If you want to know whether I have challenged Liberal positions amongst Liberals, you should probably ask.
The suggestion that you can't learn from history without having lived it is dubious. So is an assertion that "the populace" is now dedicated to breaking or ignoring laws. Half the electorate voted for Trump. That's a lot of the populace. Another large chunk of the populace purposely voted not-Hillary. That's a lot of people. A further huge chunk of the populace couldn't give two shits about politics, and just want to live their lives. A very vocal, very publicized group of people are freaking out about Trump. But a nation of anarchy this is not.
Conservatives now control the White House and both houses of Congress. Time to quit whining, ignore or handle the Left's freak out, and get stuff done.
I would not say either is "controlled by conservatives". There are a lot of Republicans that are certainly not Conservative and during the primary campaign we were told that Trump was a Democrat.
Personally, I think he is acting as an American that is fed up with what has been happening over the last 16 years and is worried about his country.
-
I would not say either is "controlled by conservatives". There are a lot of Republicans that are certainly not Conservative and during the primary campaign we were told that Trump was a Democrat.
Fair point. I'll revise my statement to say controlled by Republicans. My advice to get things done still stands. It's not easy being in power when lots of people are against you. Just ask Obama.
-
Fair point. I'll revise my statement to say controlled by Republicans. My advice to get things done still stands. It's not easy being in power when lots of people are against you. Just ask Obama.
True, but Obama at least had the MSM on his side riding shotgun.
It will be interesting to see if Trump can deliver on more of his promises than Obama did and actually help to heal, rather than divide the nation.
-
The real truth and crux of these problems lies with liberal academia.
Period.
Steingar lectures us about how hard working and deserving he and his ilk are based on nothing more than ego and projection and he REALLY BELIEVES that he is above being questioned because of his self proclaimed, triple digit IQ.
Academia is infested with lazy, entitled, narrow minded bigots, that truly believe they deserve to rule over us because of their make believe superior intelligence and because they have the right progressive credentials, which are useless and worthless, besides being of no value in the real world.
Public teacher unions are a toxic poison in America and drain education of needed graduates with career skills, in favor of robots, scared to think for fear they will bring down the wrath of loud mouthed nit-wits, who do nothing of value but talk about how deserving they are.
Economic freedom is being reduced day by day because of the garbage Obama appointed who wrote millions of pages of damaging regulations designed to grant power to the government and keep choice out of the hands of those who pay the bills. Steingar and his ilk LOVE it.
The real reason progressive democrats lost heir minds over DeVos was because of school choice. Any choice in the hands of the people is detrimental to the progressive agenda which is really just communism and they will fight to the point of possibly breaking a finger nail to preserve their monopoly on education.
Take liberals out of education and within a generation children will begin to learn and flourish again. Let them stay in power and the march to moronville will escalate.
"He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches."-George Bernard Shaw
-
"He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches."-George Bernard Shaw
He who cannot teach, teaches Gym.
-
He who cannot teach, teaches Gym.
Or goes on "Public Assistance".
-
He who cannot teach, teaches Gym.
Or goes on "Public Assistance".
Or gains tenure at a University.
-
"He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches."-George Bernard Shaw
He who cannot teach, administrates.
-
Your veiled Holier Than Thou attitude is not appreciated. Let's agree on something: you don't know me. If you want to know whether the goings on look "good" to me, you should probably ask. If you want to know whether I have challenged Liberal positions amongst Liberals, you should probably ask.
The suggestion that you can't learn from history without having lived it is dubious. So is an assertion that "the populace" is now dedicated to breaking or ignoring laws. Half the electorate voted for Trump. That's a lot of the populace. Another large chunk of the populace purposely voted not-Hillary. That's a lot of people. A further huge chunk of the populace couldn't give two shits about politics, and just want to live their lives. A very vocal, very publicized group of people are freaking out about Trump. But a nation of anarchy this is not.
Conservatives now control the White House and both houses of Congress. Time to quit whining, ignore or handle the Left's freak out, and get stuff done.
Your sermon on everything is dubious because you have managed to make it all about you.
Your lecture on the responsibility of the current president and congress is full of protection for your party of no progress.
If you can stop protecting the failed policies of liberalism long enough to see the damage those,policies have done, we might have the makings of a discussion. As long as you insist on mealy mouthed rejection of the truth of history and pretend that everything is ok, there is little to discuss.
-
It's not easy being in power when lots of people are against you. Just ask Obama.
Bullshit. That's just more pretense and defense of indefensible failure.
No president in the last seventy years had more latitude and flexibility than Barack. He wasted it on idiocy, egotistical idiocy and trillions of idiotic spending count led with trillions in regulatory idiocy.p to instill bigger government control and less freedom.
-
Your sermon on everything is dubious because you have managed to make it all about you.
Your lecture on the responsibility of the current president and congress is full of protection for your party if no progress.
If you can stop protecting the failed policies of liberalism long enough to see the damage those,policies have done, we might have the makings of a discussion. As long as you insist on mealy mouthed rejection of the truth of history and pretend that everything is ok, there is little to discuss.
Actually the post sidesteps an attempt to make the conversation about me.
I can't understand your second graf.
There is lots to discuss.
-
Bullshit. That's just more pretense and defense of indefensible failure.
No president in the last seventy years had more latitude and flexibility than Barack. He wasted it on idiocy, egotistical idiocy and trillions of idiotic spending count led with trillions in regulatory idiocy.p to instill bigger government control and less freedom.
Your post generator is failing you.