|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Can't read the white stuff. This is getting way old. Get some sunglasses, find an "invert colors" app, something. Just stop with the excuses for ignoring evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
We get tired of you shrugging off facts as projection and innuendo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Well thank you for confirming, yet again that Trump supporters are enemies of truth and liberty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: ...poised to condemn Trump on his foreign policy positions Gosh you don't say! Gosh, how thick are you?
I'd be amazed if there was ever a moment when somebody WASN'T "poised to condem trump" for something or other. Just thinking of condemning Trump is enough to make headlines these days. It's the Republican controlled Senate (led by Trump flunky "I won't allow a vote on anything Trump says he won't sign" Mitch McConnell) poised to condemn Trump. Maybe the Senate is finally going to rise up on its hind legs and assert its constitutionally defined prerogatives, instead of meekly surrendering to all Trump's mismanagement and abuses of power. So aren't you going to condemn the Republican Senate for maligning your hero? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
No, this is a concerted attempt to bring down Trump and everything and anything negative that they can conjure up or inflate or outright invent will do for that purpose. That is correct. And the sooner the better.
There's no freedom of the press here, there's no other side ever expressed ... Of course there is, Love. You have, and have listed, many demented fascist right wing sources of lies and hatred while the Enlightened Left tries to educate and inform all through the same media technology. Neither Tucker Carlson nor Rachel Maddow are in any threat from this government for their musings. This whole discussion, on the internet, on the radio/TV, in the papers and the political rags of all stripes, widely disseminated on the national stage, is precisely what freedom of the press produces. And a national consensus is building because of it. Trump needs to be kicked in the ass as he is booted from the Oval Office.
I wish you'd all wake up and see what's going on but I guess that isn't going to happen. We are awake, Dear Lady. This is exactly what we want to happen. Skewer the alt-right, jab the fundies and belittle the insanely hateful conservative. And have them do the same to us.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Not really. ANYBODY merely being "poised" to condemn Trump is considered newsworthy by the Leftist press of course, but it sounds more important if it comes from his Republican enemies. Geez, amazing. Do you read even half what people write? No wonder people have to keep telling you the same thing over and over again. You do know who Mitch McConnell is, right? You do know that Mitch McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader, right? You do know that the Senate Majority Leader is the leader of the Senate, right? And you do know that Mitch McConnell is one of Trump's staunchest supporters and defenders, right? And you do understand that McConnell proposed the resolution himself, right? So what explains this next incredibly ignorant comment:
If someone even thinks something negative about Trump it makes headlines on Yahoo, and yes if it's a Republican so much the better. If there's even a hint of a rumor of a suspicion that somebody thought something negative about Trump for two seconds they'd consider it newsworthy. But there are plenty of scoundrelly Republicans who don't bother to hide their slightest disagreement with him. I don't think you realized what you were saying, but I strongly agree with this paragraph characterizing Mitch McConnell as a scoundrel. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Trump is taking his lead from what the Border Patrol tell him they need. See this New York Times article from last year: What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall):
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
PaulK writes: Yes, I know you want it covered up, but it is newsworthy which is why even Fox is carrying it. I looked for a mention at the Fox News website when I originally posted on this subtopic but couldn't find anything, and I still don't see anything about it there. Their search facility doesn't seem to be working right now - searching for anything, including "Trump", comes up empty. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: As I understand it he gets his information from those in the field. As you understand it? Of what value is that? See my previous post about this. The rank and file want more people on the ground and better technology. Less than 1% mentioned a wall. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
My apologies.
However, even Fox viewers don’t accept that ISIS is defeated and want the troops to stay Fox Poll And I note that the whole issue there is an example of the turmoil in the Trump administration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I know you guys will never see it though it continues to amaze me. I mean something like 95% of the headlines about Trump are negative and you guys just say that's because he's 95% wrong and never question that reaction....etc...etc...etc... Wow, what an irrelevant off-topic tirade. The Senate, which has served as Trump's lapdog the past two years, might actually stand up for America and oppose Trump on something. That is newsworthy. Why does it bother you so much that this is being reported? Even the conservative Washington Examiner has picked it up: McConnell issues warning over Syria, Afghanistan troop withdrawals --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Your "evidence" means nothing, sorry. For one thing Google has changed things so that only what they want to appear at the top of their lists is what appears. Yes Google is just another bunch of Leftist activists. They've long since abandoned the method that simply brings up what people are interested in. Can you please stop saying things that you're just making up? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: I get tired of all the projections and innuendos treated as important on your side, like all the rumors and suspicions and fictions that pass for news. It all means absolutely nothing to me. Facts mean nothing to you, as already demonstrated. You also don't seem to have a problem with rumors, suspicions, and fictions that you hear on your favorite radio and TV programs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: No I can't prove it. Of course you can't prove it. That's because you made it up.
I know from experience that topics I used to find at the top of their lists are now two or three pages in, and that includes my own blog posts. My blog was small potatoes but I could just about predict when a certain topic would hit the top of Google,... Not sure what it means for a topic to hit the top of Google unless you're talking about specific searches, but anyway, do you mean your blog topics used to hit the top of some kind of list produced by Google?
...which owns Blogger, and that simply stopped happening. About the same time they changed the pages where I manage the blog so that I can no longer figure any of it out let alone control it. Give me access and I'll figure it out for you.
My viewers went from the hundreds down to the tens. Right, must be my fault, nothing to do with Google. Of course. Interest in the creation/evolution debate has declined generally. Participation at EvC Forum is down also, and EvC Forum appears in Google search results much less often than it used to. Part of the reason is that EvC Forum is non-conforming with Google standards, so they downgrade us on search results. For example, their checking software complains that the page links are too small and close together. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I get tired of all the projections and innuendos treated as important on your side, like all the rumors and suspicions and fictions that pass for news. Aspersions and name-calling is no substitute for substantive rebuttal, of which you seem to have none. I gave you a link that actually has a map of the entire US/Mexican border and shows everywhere there are walls, as well as video taken by helicopter of a traverse of the entire border from east to west. With few exceptions the only places there aren't already walls is along the Rio Grande, and even the Rio Grande has walls in some places. But building a wall in front of a river is pretty silly, don't you think? The river's already a barrier - just patrol the river, either with boats or from roads along or near the river. And you still haven't addressed all the other issues. Much of the land along the Rio Grande is privately owned, and attempting to take it by eminent domain would be tied up in the courts for years and years. And building a wall would cut off access to the river. And then there's the environmental impact, since we can't have a wall that cuts off wildlife access to water. The Border Patrol already uses boats to patrol the Rio Grande, e.g.:
This is why almost no border patrol agents say they need more wall. Where there's no river there's usually already wall, and where there's river there's no need for a wall.
It all means absolutely nothing to me. What an intelligent person would do is assess the evidence and form opinions based upon that. I see none of this on your part, just ignoring massive swathes of evidence.
If the wall plan you illustrate is actually a serious plan then I will assume it's a good plan and I could not care less what you think of it. It's not a matter of whether you care or not, though I assume you do else you wouldn't be here not discussing this, but whether you have any counter arguments. It would appear not.
Otherwise I will expect to hear of better solutions when we're nearer to something actually happening. Nothing's going to happen. They're not going to wall off the Rio Grande. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024