The Right Side of the News

"fiscal sanity" - was Obama more fiscally sane than Trump? Which of today's Democrat presidential candidates are more fiscally sane than Trump?"Strong defense"?? Trump is for less defense than Obama, or Biden/Sanders/Warren?Right now, Iran seems to be a little bit worse player than Russia. Then why was he, and you, mystified about what Republicans stand for? Did you forget about the more basic ones that I mentioned? He's not perfect, I absolutely agree that he's been less than perfect with his fiscal responsibility promises. But so has presidents before him, they all seem to learn the hard way, just how hard it is to undo big government spending of the past. But the economy is good, Republicans are willing to give him more time based on that alone. I think he'll get a bigger margin of votes for his second term than he did his first. Every two term president has since FDR, except one. Obama. Not at all, he didn't even address illegal immigrants. It would have been ugly if he had. Yes, LEGALLY. About 3 years and three months ago they might have. Three years and two months ago, voters, both Republicans and swing voters, decided it was time to try something slightly different. They now have plenty of jobs, a good economy, and the second coming of Osama Bin Laden dead before he could kill 3000 American civilians. Do you really believe that civilians like you and I have perfect access to all information concerning leaks of classified information? It's not even worth a discussion, and again, no rabbit trails for me. Nancy Pelosi pot, meet Nancy Pelosi kettle. The basics were all there. I like a strong economy, and dead terrorists.

There's no substance in this rubber/glue argument. That's what the conservatives have told you, and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. If conservatives were really for freedom then they would be for the freedom to make one's own choices. If they were against forcing things on people then they wouldn't be trying to force unwanted pregnancies on women. Society is richer when it has true freedom and variety and tolerance with full and fair electoral participation and a level economic playing field, something conservatives have had increasing problems with and Trumpists especially. To borrow some phrasing from Reagan: I didn't leave the conservatives; they left me. Which words would you like to use that liberals are preventing you from using?--Percy

Fox News often reports them too, that's pretty much the extent of conservative news media. But LOCAL network news sometimes reports local events that aren't as politically correct as the national news likes. Things like black on white crime, it seldom makes it to national news. But white on black crime - big national news every time.As the mainstream media gets more shrill and doubles down with its bias, I expect to see some new conservative news media come into being in the near future. Newsmax seems to be a newcomer, one I haven't had a chance to check out much yet.

You must not read jar's posts much, that's good thinking, I try to avoid reading them too, except for entertainment. But it's hard not to notice one of his favorite pastimes, calling conservative's fascists. Message 3987Message 3989Message 4055Message 4059

Make your argument supporting this statement. Not sure what you are trying to say, so not sure what way to destroy it.

quote:

---

The text of the constitution and intent of the framers also shows a contempt for liberal democracy.

---

Well I’m glad that you admit your own contempt for democracy.Though I don’t think many people want to go back to a situation where only 6% of the population can vote.

From the New York Times: How Rupert Murdoch Is Influencing Australia’s Bushfire DebateNo sense in changing the subtitle since the "conservative" response to any information they don't want to hear is to label it "fake news", so this is really addressed to everyone else.The article basically debunks the arson falsehoods.

You seem to have a bee in your pants about the climate issues. I asked you weeks ago two simple questions which you haven't answered:Do you think it is ok to pore toxins into the air we breathe?Do you not accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

What does it mean to be "in every facet an American." There is enormous variety among native born Americans and one has to expect even greater variety among recent citizens. When you're over a certain age, it might be 50, you don't even have to know English to become an American. There are financial aid packages for those granted asylum or refugee status. A refugee can get $325/month for each adult and $200/month for each child for eight months, and other benefits for longer. Those granted asylum can get food stamps and Medicaid and other benefits. Is that what you're talking about? What is your objection to these programs?Look at it this way. How well do most people do in life who were raised in poverty? How well do most people do who were raised in households with average incomes? With very good incomes? In rich families?The answers are obvious. The better start one has as a child the more successful one is likely one to be as an adult. The same is true of immigrants. Providing assistance gives them a boost at beginning careers and assimilating. Regions like Puerto Rico (actually a territory) or Syria or Afghanistan seems like good reasons for emigration. We don't have any serious immigration problems today. We just have people like Trump firing up anti-immigration fears. The real problem is too little immigration. The "free stuff" is at most around $5000 over the course of around a year for refugees and asylum grantees. Hopefully that tiny amount helps enough for them to become familiar and productive and living real lives in their new country. And you know this how? Anyone purposefully starting brushfires during an exceptionally hot and dry period, especially after all the fire risk warnings, should be arrested, and apparently 24 have. There's nothing to be "delighted" about here. Climate warming has led to Australia experiencing its greater fire risks ever. Anyone trying to dramatize or bring increased attention to climate change by starting dangerous fires should be condemned by everyone, not to mention arrested and tried. Hint: 1) You've never identified this corruption. 2) Every type of human endeavor get touched by corruption at at least some point. Trump was corrupt with his charity. Does that mean we should cease all human endeavors? Fear might not be the right word, but we should be very concerned about climate change because of the dramatic impact it will have on the world. We're already seeing the effects in increased numbers of severe weather events and in increased sea levels. Many parts of the world are already experiencing the effects of rising sea levels, such as Woodbridge, NJ, Venice, Italy, and coastal Bangladesh, to mention just a few. Many coastal US cities will be severely affected by rising sea levels, New Orleans and Miami to mention just two. The arctic is melting and becoming navigable in the warmer months, and nations are beginning to ready their claims on arctic resources. Regions with permafrost find it is melting and causing sinkholes and coastal collapse. Again, if you've got any evidence of this corruption, let's hear it. You've said this in previous posts, been challenged on it, and have been unable to name anything. Name the corruption this time, else we'll know you're just making it up. It depends upon how imminent the threat. Personally I'm at about 480 feet above sea level. I'll never be directly affected by rising sea levels. But our local climate has definitely changed. Seasons change at different times than they used to, we get different amounts of rain and snow than we used to, temperatures are more moderate than they used to be, and generally things are wetter. For example, in the fall I never used to have any trouble finding a time to blow the leaves when they were dry and could be blown easily. Now falls are so wet that the leaves never really dry out. And in the last few years moss has started growing where it has never grown before, like down my asphalt driveway which also happens to get the most sun of any spot on my property.For the sake of discussion let's consider that climate change is not man-made and merely reflects natural variation. The course of change has become so relentless that we must still do everything we can to minimize our own contributions to its effects because they'll be catastrophic within a half century. It's imperative that we reach a point where carbon levels in the atmosphere are decreasing. We must stop all methane leaks from oil drilling, pipe lines and such. Here's a graph of atmospheric carbon levels over the past 10,000 years: And here's a graph of atmospheric carbon levels since 1980: This wasn't in the Vox article you cited. I think you're making things up again. AOC was not making up information. She presented the best evidence from climate change research which says that within not too many years we'll reach a tipping point beyond which nothing much we do will help. The time to act is now. I agree that it is difficult to convince people to make sacrifices for climate events that are still years off and that the current administration disputes. This is where the Trump administration has abdicated its responsibilities. They should be accepting the best science and doing their best to help people see the seriousness of the problem so that we can begin changing how we do things as quickly as possible. I don't know how long you expect to live, but I'll take that bet. How much you willing to put up?--Percy

Curiously, I find it humorous to go back to the start of some arguments to see how much you wander from your own points. It started with: And again you have dropped in another non-sequitur. What paragraph, one wonders -- not any mentioned or linked in previous parts of this conversation. Fortunately -for you - I recognized it from an extreme alt-reich facebook page I monitor for chuckles. There was, of course, a bit more to the quote than what you pasted:

quote:

---

Barracuda Brigade

​

---

Now remember that the original issue was actions by liberals that was on the scale of Trumps fascist treatment of immigrants the way Germany treated Jews -- caging them, separating their families, failing to provide medical attention etc ...... and this (full) quote has nothing to do with anything comparable to Trump's actions that I can see, it certainly was not any part of government policy and is nothing more than opinion. Something Teddy Roosevelt had in abundance. See more facebook quotes posted by liberalist pages:Update Your Browser | FacebookUpdate Your Browser | FacebookThat last is appropriate for today's discussion/s re Trump's ability/fitness to be president.Now one could argue that these quotes show Teddy to be a populist nationalist, but that doesn't make him a fascist. Which is not surprising seeing as he was a republican, not a liberal.So your effort to provide a comparable fascist action as Trump's treatment of immigrants is a complete failure, with you attempt to hide that fact by introducing non-sequitur arguments and nothing else.RAZD list of fascist actions/policies by Trump -- score 1
marc000 list of ANY liberal president comparable -- score 0As far as I am concerned this issue is closed. You've demonstrated a lack of ability to provide an actual answer. Epic fail.All for now, new message on rest.Enjoy

Part 2 -- climate change as a leftist terrorist propaganda, actions ...Again starting back with So remember the question at hand: is it "terror" or reality: Only a conservative would take joy in death and destruction in Australia. Yes, conservative logic rides again ... when in doubt make up a conspiracy theory.

quote:

---

(your link): The New South Wales Police Force said Tuesday they have taken legal action against more than 180 people, including 40 juveniles, for 205 bushfire-related offenses since November 2019. In addition to the 24 people arrested and charged for alleged arsons, 53 have been accused of failing to comply with a total fire ban and 47 with discarding lit cigarettes or matches.

---

So obviously all those fires were started by deep state liberal activists as part of a covert action to terrorist people with global climate change ... the evidence is overwhelming ... except that most of the people involve were -- like Americans -- careless with matches and cigarettes (so intentional it boggles the mind).Nor have the police mentioned any coordinated conspiracy, but that doesn't stop conservative conspiracy mills from going into overdrive.Nor does it answer questions of all the other fires, nor does it address the size and aggressiveness of the fires, well beyond anything known before. So I'm sure those deep state liberal activists were out at night pouring gasoline on the fires ... {abe} oh dear, it looks like chiroptera put the find-outs on your story -- see Message 4162 -- and it's faked up by Master of lies Murdock.

​

So I was right about the conservative's when in doubt make up a conspiracy theory.

​

What a surprise.

​

Not.{/abe}

​

{abe2}Also see Australia fires: The viral false claim of 200 arsonists starting bushfires, explained - Vox}Hint: you're a whackadoodle conspiracy theorist that has no concept of the size and devastation of the fires, whether started by deep state liberal activists or not.Conspiracy theorist "logic:" 24 arsonists set some fires, therefore global climate change is a hoax.When I was a young man working for the Forest Service in Idaho on a summer job, I was given some forest fire fighting training. It was no easy to start a small fire for the purposes of demonstrating fire fighting techniques, because the conditions were not optimum. We were lucky.Conspiracy activists cannot create optimum conditions for forest fires -- climate does that, climate change is making it worse, with hotter and dryer conditions around the world make such fires bigger and more frequent. The Australians knew it was going to be a bad fire year because of the conditions, but they didn't know exactly how bad and big a problem it would be. More fact free assertion of conspiracy theory ignoring small details, like people aren't causing dry climates to make fires more frequent or larger, the climate is changing: it's been measured. And once again your article does not back up your claim, climate scientists are not mentioned at all, so your claim about them in unsubstantiated malarkey/shinola.Instead it shows how Americans are becoming more aware of climate change and concerned about it ... because of their own experiences with the effects of climate changes around them.

quote:

---

(your link): According to a nationally representative survey from Yale University and George Mason University, 69 percent of Americans are somewhat worried about climate change and 29 percent are very worried. These are the highest values since the surveys began in 2008, and the very worried category shows an 8 percent jump compared to the previous survey published in April 2018.

​

We’ve never seen that happen before, said co-author Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. My read of it is that basically, people are more convinced that it’s happening and more convinced that it’s human-caused.

​

Similarly, a national Reuters/Ipsos poll from December found that 72 percent of Americans consider climate change to be a moderate, serious, or imminent threat.

​

A big reason for the growing concern is that many of the consequences of climate change have become impossible to ignore in recent years. The United States saw billions of dollars in damages and dozens of deaths last year as rising temperatures increased the damages from extreme events. These disasters helped make the somewhat abstract warming of the planet tangible in people’s minds.

---

underline, italics added It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic how misinformed and out of touch you are.

quote:

---

History of climate change science - Wikipedia

​

The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced, involving forces from volcanism to solar variation. Thomas Edison, pioneer of electrical technologies, voiced concern for climate change and support for renewable energy in the 1930s.[1] In the 1960s, the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing. Some scientists also pointed out that human activities that generated atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well.

​

Global Temperature Trends 1880—2017 ​ By J. Hansen, Makiko Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade - https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56951439

​

During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. By the 1990s, as a result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, a consensus position formed: greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human-caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming. Since the 1990s, scientific research on climate change has included multiple disciplines and has expanded. Research has expanded our understanding of causal relations, links with historic data and ability to model climate change numerically. Research during this period has been summarized in the Assessment Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

---

Curiously I studied it in 1970 at university ... and have followed developments since. Going by the accuracy of your other claims, I'm not worried. Unless of course Il Donald declares martial law to take over ...OBTW -- you have failed to show that climate change is a liberal terrorist plot ... no surprise.So: marc2000 liberal terrorist plots uncovered to date 0. Epic fail.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

Marc, back around 1901 in Teddy’s day, illegal immigration was pretty much being a stowaway on a ship coming to the USA. Legal immigration was buying a ticket. Depending on what year, there were restrictions on undesirables such as Chinese folks, but they didn’t issue visas back then.

In the 1800s and 1900s Illegal Immigrants were Cherokees owning plantations and fine house or Plains Indians living where there was gold or silver or grazing lands or sheep ranchers invading cattle country or people trying to keep the herds out of their crops. Chinese could come into the country as long as there were tunnels to dig and rail lines to be laid.But then we stopped trying to take advantage of immigrants and all was jess fine.Check the date on the lower right:

Trump’s DOJ quietly ends two-year fishing expedition on the Clintons and admits it found nothing

quote:

---

On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that the Department of Justice is quietly winding down a two-year probe into the Clintons, and admitting that nothing of consequence was found to suggest they had committed any sort of criminal offense.

​

The probe, conducted by U.S. Attorney John Huber, began as an attempt by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to satisfy Republicans who had been clamoring for President Donald Trump to fulfill one of his campaign slogans and lock her up.

​

Huber focused in particular on the debunked right-wing conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton traded approval of the sale of a Canadian uranium company operating in the United States to the Russian government, in return for contributions from its board to her family’s charitable foundation.

​

In reality, Clinton did not have unilateral veto power over the sale, and the donor to the Clinton Foundation had sold his stake in Uranium One long before the deal. But Republicans still did everything they could to turn Uranium One into shorthand for the Clintons’ supposed corruption.

---

Doesn't matter to Trump's rumor mill which feeds his backing. All he ever needs is news releases that an investigation has started. Works in the Ukraine, works here.