The Right Side of the News

Jews have achieved those positions to a disproportionate percentage of their population is because they've sufficiently convinced those they serve that they have superior ability to perform those tasks. Blacks hold many sports positions that are disproportionate to their population percentage, most notably football and basketball, for the same reason. I simply don't believe that gay people have a special talent for reporting news better than straight people. They're selected because of their political positions, because in most cases (not all) their political views tend to lean left. Because unlike being Jewish, or being black, being gay is pretty clearly condemned by the word of God. Anti Christian people tend to worship and trust government. Some gays honestly claim to be Christian, and I don't judge them. As a fundie, I don't believe their lives are any of my business. But I do object to their politically seeking special rights. Since those of them who claim to be Christian bend and shape the word of God to include themselves, it's only logical that they would tend to bend and shape the U.S. constitution to achieve leftist goals. It's not hard to notice the defiant attitude that some of them display.WATCH: Don Lemon’s Trump Hate Goes So Low, Chris Cuomo Calls Him Out On-Air: ‘You’re Petty And Small’ | The Daily Wire Agreed, they're the ones who don't seek special rights. Fox didn't start out as mainstream, they started out as cable station balance to the rest of the news media that was so obviously left, there was a market for what Fox had to offer, when they started up back in 1996. I don't necessarily disagree that they're mainstream by now, considering their comparable ratings, but they still don't seem to me to have the over-the-air access like the rest of the long-traditional news media, their TV access is usually included in pay packages only.They are biased right, no doubt, but they do have a lot of liberal representation on their discussion shows. They outnumber them with conservatives, and constantly destroy and laugh at them though. They keep coming back for more - Fox must pay them really well.

Abuse of power that can be noticed in the everyday lives of the population. The Democrats current definition of "abuse of power" doesn't get anywhere near that. I'll be glad to give you a reason;Page not found | IJROne Democrat representative, (who WON'T be condemned for it in the mainstream media) is suggesting that they'll impeach Trump again if he wins in 2020. No idea on what grounds, but they'll think of something.Do you think the current Democrat party hates democracy? Polls show the majority of Americans don't support the current impeachment fiasco. They're the ones who democratically elected him.

(strike the last word) I understand where parody belongs and where it does not. It's fine on SNL, on political commentary shows, on talk radio be it liberal or conservative, in everyday conversations involving just about anybody. Pelosi and others have claimed that this impeachment process, is very serious, very grave, very unfortunate. Official statements about it by a congressperson, let alone a committee chair, is where it DOES NOT BELONG. Who, in an attempted walk-back of Schiff's LIE, coined the term, "parody", for this lie? It was Schiff himself. It's amazing how many others quickly attempt to help him with damage control. By taking off and running with his "parody" excuse. I guess that depends on what the definition of "a lot" is. Schiff only seems to have grown horns recently. He's been a member of the House since 2001. He agreed with Bush 43 about the invasion of Iraq. I never noticed him being in the news at all until very recently. He doesn't seem to have a nasty, tyrannical ambition like...Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Tom Steyer, many others. He really seems like he could be a nice guy. What could have caused him to turn out to be a such a partisan liar so suddenly? My common sense suspicion, that you scoff at, is that he's after a money prize. That is what has turned him into a deranged maniac, a liar. Need some evidence that he's a liar?Adam Schiff Reading Self Written Clown Parody LIED To CongressAdam Schiff credibility crumbling amid Donald Trump impeachment push - Washington TimesMSNBC | Washington ExaminerAdam Schiff Lies About Vindman Testimony in Next HearingAdam Schiff Lied That He Doesn’t Know The Identity Of The Whistleblower – Def-Con NewsAdam Schiff Caught in Another Major Lie This List Of Attacks Against Conservatives Is Mind Blowing | The Daily CallerThe 7 Worst Liberal Attacks on Donald Trump's Family Liberal attacks on Trump are so unhinged, it might get him killedhttps://cowgernation.com/...ting-the-catholic-apostles-creed

quote:

---

When 95% of media donates to Democrats it is no surprise that 90% of the stories they run about Trump are nasty smears and character assassinations.

---

The Mainstream Media has become a 24/7 Attack on Trump • iPatriot Contributers • Do you have a derogatory name for those who started this organization?NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists - WikipediaHetrophobes? No? Double standard? See above, get busy. Schiff has been shown to be a liar nine ways from Sunday. Need more links? "Cruel", every single past U.S. president can be accused of being cruel at one time or another during their presidency. Was FDR cruel when he ordered Japanese Americans rounded up shortly after Pearl Harbor? It's only one example - all your adjectives come from a liberal political view. If they were simple true facts about who he is, he wouldn't be president, and wouldn't have the support he has from somewhere around half the population. How in this world do you take from my comment about Fox News' lack of bias to mean that I don't find them acceptable? Point taken, that was my mistake. ABC World News Tonight claims to be "America's most watched news source". They obviously lie. Or maybe it was just an attempt to get justice for serious past U.S. government corruption. What evidence do you have to show that Trump was nervous about facing Biden in the 2020 election, well over a year before that election? Ever since all these Democrats have come forward seeking the nomination, Trump and most conservatives clearly see that none of them are much of a threat to defeat Trump in 2020. All the scrambling, the new billionaires like Bloomberg, Steyer etc recently jumping in, and other things make it obvious. Most posters here say things without constantly providing links to back them up. And often when they do, they only link to remarks from others who are opinionated just like they are. Check out the links in Message 3594 They're pretty useless, as are most claims of "proof" that are linked on message boards. I lend weight to things that I see in my life's experiences. A reader can accept them, or dismiss them. It's the way I choose to do it, you can censure me or ban me if you feel the need. How do you know I'm not? I've had the hearings on in the background today off and on, and I'm enjoying it. Compared to Obama, he hasn't.realclearpolitics.comReview & Outlook: Obama's Abuse of Power - WSJ

quote:

---

The Obama administration was full of scandal, though we have a lazy and partisan news media that is determined to see no scandal in it.

---

Obama’s Many Scandals: Abuse of Government Power Worse Than Sex Scandals | National ReviewNow, let's see how quickly you dismiss the links I've provided in this message, and maybe you'll see why I limit my time and effort in doing it.I yield back.....

Not when it's compared with the power that was exercised by past presidents. And not when it's compared with the issues the founders had with the King of England. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll see a lot of concern with the King's abuse of power concerning the people, not any of his dealings with other foreign countries. In the future, Republicans will have no choice but to impeach the next Democrat president, though I doubt there will be another Democrat president in any of our lifetimes. They could have impeached Obama multiple times for some of his abuses of power, but they didn't because they weren't completely unhinged like today's Democrats are. If they don't impeach a future Democrat president, it will be claimed by Democrats that they don't do it because they CAN'T, that Democrats are too pure. Republicans will be forced to use the same flimsy standards that today's Democrats are using. Where in the constitution does it say that means a thing, concerning presidential elections? Impeachment: Poll shows most Americans don't want Trump removed Majority of Americans don't want Trump to be impeached, new poll finds - CBS NewsPoll Shows the Majority of Americans Still Don't Want Trump Impeached – RedStatehttps://twnews.us/...ricans-don-t-want-trump-to-be-impeached

Not when the event happens well over a year before the upcoming election, involving only one of about 20 candidates who is nowhere near the nomination. The claim of election interference is quite a stretch - it's obviously the same as most all the accusations against Trump, grasping at anything they can, not because of any concern about politics, but about a personal hatred against Trump. It would have been best for the country if Clinton's escapades would have gone unnoticed, but they didn't, and Clinton clearly lied under oath to a Federal Grand Jury. Trump hasn't come close to that. It's always interesting to see those on the far left showing concern for the Constitution. For some reason, democrat presidential candidate Tom Steyer's facebook drivel shows up on my facebook feed. This is what he said, back on December 4th, I think it was. I copied it to my notepad, because I expected it to be deleted, apparently it was. But this is a fact, though you and of course Percy won't believe it.

quote:

---

A lot of candidates talk about the climate crisis, but words are meaningless if they’re not followed by action. I’m the only Democrat running for president who will use emergency powers of the president and declare a national climate emergency on day one.

---

There's not a dime's worth of difference between all the Democrat candidates, that's the reason none of them are opening up a commanding lead against the others. The climate change terror has been ramped way up since the Obama administration. Whichever Democrat gets the nomination will be planning to do something this drastic on "day one". What do you think Steyer's plan is? To declare martial law? To....search and seize all wood burning stoves?EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural PeopleThis link is from 2014, the government appetite for this and other types of seizures has been going on for a long time, the current climate change frenzy make it a bigger threat now than ever before. The Electoral College reflects the will of the American people, not mobs in inner cities of California.

In past messages, you have pointed to lists of "Trumps lies". Sarcasm and exaggeration are part of Trump's personality, everyone knows that. Could it be that about 95% on Trump's lie list are comparable to what you claim as Schiff's sarcasm and exaggeration? Double standard? Yes, no problem so far. Yes. Sorry, it was a big fat one. Schiff used the word "dirt". Nothing like anything Trump said. Trump's words were more about ~justice~. Your phrase "long ago debunked" is a Democrat talking point, nothing near the truth. There are a lot of unanswered questions about crack-head Hunter Biden's actions, and how they related to the Biden Vice presidency. Schiff just skipped over details of what Trump was referring to. Most on the far left would describe them as you do - "long ago debunked" and "there was no server", but those listening to him who aren't on the far left might have been interested in some of those details. "seven times" and "you better listen good". Big fat lies. Trump might talk like that at more informal times, or to the fake news media, but Trump has more respect for foreign leaders than to talk to them like that. "Don't call me again". Lie - that whole paragraph was nothing but lies and misrepresentations. That's the reason I seldom bother to offer you evidence, you dismiss it with one sentence. If you'd have read those links, you'd see there is evidence for Schiff's other many lies, including his lie about the knowledge of the identity of the whistleblower. Yes, it is justified. Trump has been called far worse for far less. That was your biggest whopper of this thread. I don't call other posters names. Uh, what I did was provide links to support what I said in past messages, since you asked for it. I didn't see any point in repeating what I'd said in past messages. Here's a hint, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID ABOUT HIM IN THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS! Sheesh, I love this place! Most, if not all of the cages for kids at the Mexican border were done during the Obama administration. This constant picking on Trump for doing comparable things as most all other past presidents is just more of what I referred to in my message to PaulK, not done in any concern about politics, just done because of a personal dislike for Trump. That's what the entire impeachment fiasco is about. Only last year, Nadler was saying that an impeachment must have significant support from both sides of the aisle.

quote:

---

If you’re serious about impeaching a president, it cannot and should not be done on a partisan basis. You have to have, at least by the end of the process, buy-in from the Republicans, or at least a good number of Republicans, Nadler said in a Feb. 2018 MSNBC interview.

---

and;

quote:

---

He added that if you’re really serious about removing a president from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, you shouldn’t do that unless you get at least an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for him, of the other side, to agree, reluctantly perhaps, to agree that ‘yeah, you had to do it,’ because otherwise you’ll have 20 years of recriminations. we won the election, you stole it from us. you don’t want to divide the country that way.

---

https://www.conservativedailynews.com/...ty-impeachment-push(this is a conservative source, so go ahead and dismiss those actual quotes)Nadler has obviously done a 180 on those statements he made. Why? Because of pressure from others in his party? This impeachment is nothing more than a political stunt.There are 31 Democrat congressmen who won their 2018 in districts that Trump won in 2016. How they vote in the impeachment hearing in the House will be carefully noted by their voters in the 2020 elections. There's nothing more cruel and appalling in U.S. history than one entire political party exploiting an America hating, foreign AUTISTIC 16 year old girl. She actually used the word "existential" in one of her public rants, as if that word is a normal part of a 16 year old's vocabulary. Her handlers should consider avoiding making it so clear that she's brainwashed and programed. I never used the word "only", I claimed the mainstream media regularly does it, without applying that same standard to angry Democrats. Other posters get by without supporting their points any better than I do, because conservatives are outnumbered here by about 30 to 1. It's the main reason there are so few conservative posters here. Yes, texts written by opinionated liberals. You really do apply double standards. He always says it in response to questions and accusations, about his various firings, something past presidents have routinely done, with no one questioning them about it. Do you have no concern about the next Democrat president declaring a climate change national emergency on "day one" of their presidency? I am, I can do nothing to stop them, though I think what they're doing is bad for the country. By enjoying, I was mainly thinking about the Republicans like Doug Collins and Jim Jordan getting comparable amounts of time to make their points. There's no question they've got something in mind, since they've gone back on what Nadler said about support from both sides of the aisle, concerning impeachment. That's really not just Nadler's statement, it's been common sense throughout the history of the country. Maybe what they have in mind is a destruction of the Electoral College. That combined with this one-sided impeachment, could turn out to be an advantage for them. The same standards should always apply. The prosecution of a president shouldn't be based in any way on how much he is personally liked by the opposing party.I yield back, permanently (for now) Have a wonderful Christmas! I enjoy going at it with you.

Doesn't this go both ways? Both sides call investigations against their side a hoax, both sides accuse the other of conspiracy theories, it goes on and on. Do you believe the "conservative talk show echo chamber" is more biased than the Washington Post and NY Times opinionated columnist echo chamber?

quote:

---

Four years ago...such a question would have elicited a very different answer. Though there was disagreement over specific issues, most Republicans would have said the party stood for some basic principles: fiscal sanity, free trade, strong on Russia, and that character and personal responsibility count.

---

The problem is, those aren't core conservative values. Your echo chamber columnist was incorrect, most actual Republicans would not have used those honeyed, vague, largely meaningless terms to describe conservativism. As you've shown, they are adaptable to just about any political view. Here's how an actual Republican would have described conservatism; The promotion of individual freedom, the importance of personal responsibility, the reduction of the powers of the federal government, and a maintenance of traditional, Judeo Christian morals.Between Reagan and Trump, 5 career politicians have sought the presidency, Bush 41, Bob Dole, Bush 43, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. All of their beliefs, fading further and further from actual conservatism from 41 to Romney, has made the Trump jolt back to actual conservatism so confusing for you.Here's a look at some actual conservatism from a little over 100 years ago;

quote:

---

Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

​

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

---

This goes along very well with Trump's words and actions of today. Another thing that has you confused is how Republicans have had to adapt to largely different circumstances in the past 50 or 60 years, mainly because the Democrat party bears little resemblance of what it was in the past, even since the Reagan administration. Last year, there were re-runs of news reports from 50 years ago, that covered the MLK assassination. There was NO MENTON of the NRA in those reports, there was no climate-change terrorism in those days, there were no cries of healthcare for all in those days, no special-rights-for-gays movements, no demands to dismantle the electoral college, no frivolous articles of impeachment against a properly elected president.There were no Democrats anywhere near a position of power that would succeed in getting frivolous articles of impeachment through the House, then cry because the same president that they're trying so hard to destroy doesn't seek their advise, and risk their leaking of classified information, before he takes proper action in response to an attack on our foreign embassy. Lindsey Graham has always gone where the political winds blow him. He'd probably say that he listens to his constituents, and tries to adapt to their wishes as best he can. Plenty of politicians on both sides do that. I'm not really interested in a discussion on how right or how wrong that is. Hopefully your question is answered - you're welcome. If not, I'll answer any reasonable questions.

That was a response to someone who is obsessed with opinionated conservative commentators, who often report news events that the mainstream news media omits. It's one of the many pot-calling-the-kettle-black issues that Trump haters have.

Germany was a dictatorship. Nazism. Italy was Fascist.Conservatives often label today's Democrats as socialists, liberals, communist sympathizers, largely because that's what they are. Those are derogatory terms, and through the 70's and 80's Democrats had no derogatory terms with which to put down conservatives, the term "conservative" isn't, and never has been, a derogatory term. They searched and searched, and finally, taking advantage of the terms "right wing", and "leftist", which were used very differently in 1940's Europe, they found the term "fascist", and adopted that term for conservatives, as if it's the opposite of communism, which it isn't.

quote:

---

Benito Mussolini, an Italian World War I veteran and publisher of Socialist newspapers, breaks with the Italian Socialists and establishes the nationalist Fasci di Combattimento, named after the Italian peasant revolutionaries, or Fighting Bands, from the 19th century. Commonly known as the Fascist Party, Mussolini’s new right-wing organization advocated Italian nationalism, had black shirts for uniforms, and launched a program of terrorism and intimidation against its leftist opponents.

---

Mussolini founds the Fascist party - HISTORY"launched a program of terrorism and intimidation" - does that sound like the climate-change hoax? If one takes into consideration the actual context of of "right wing" and "leftist" labels of that place and time, it becomes very obvious which party in the U.S. today is closest to fascism.

Was Theodore Roosevelt a fascist? Climate-change terror. It has been wildly ramped up since the last year of the Obama administration.

How does it make the Clintons look, what's the dead body count around them up to by now?

The words from that paragraph.

quote:

---

...it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American There can be no divided allegiance here.

---

It was not predicated on people coming here only for free stuff, or to escape problems of other nations. Wasn't predicated on anything like the immigration problems we have today. I don't know just what prompted him to make those statements, but it's for sure that it wasn't because there was free stuff here for them - there wasn't at that time. The actions he would have taken against ILLEGAL immigration would make Trump's pale in comparison. Don't mind a bit. I knew you'd be delighted about those fires.Police Arrest 24 People for Arson in Australian Bushfires Intentional setting - why? Some of the 180 figure seem to be from just carelessness, but 24 seem to have malicious intent. Do you think they all had separate reasons, or were they coordinated? Are all of the 24 native Australians, or were some of them transported there? Many questions remain to be answered, and they may never be reported on, but I only have one guess as to what special interest organized them and funded them. Can you guess what my guess is? Do you have other guesses? (hint; climate-change corruption has more money and power potential than any other political movement since the beginning of time.) Climate change fear has increased faster in the last 3 years than Nazism in early and mid 1930's Germany. There's more money and corruption involved than George Soros can even fantasize about.Here's some more facts that are in, few people have any intention of making any sacrifices or paying anything for it.Climate change polls: Americans are more worried about climate change - VoxIt seems that about 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans, and it's looking more and more like that same 97% agree that it's not their own fault, or the fault of their own political beliefs. Most of that 97% are non U.S. scientists of course (who point fingers at the U.S. and a few other successful countries) The ones from the U.S. are mostly liberal atheists, so they point fingers at Trump and Republicans.It's been almost a year since the genius of the climate change movement, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, invented the Green New Deal, telling us that our lives are over if we don't completely stop with fossil fuels in 12 years. Just about down to 11 now, times a wastin. Any ideas on just what is to be done to persuade most people to make sacrifices? Set more fires? Sensationalize more and more about snow in January? About hot weather in the summer? Hurricanes? Implying to young people that these things have never happened before?In my area, the Cincinnati area, we had 2 brutal winters on both sides of 1977, 32 years ago. Much more snow than average - the Ohio river froze solid in early 77, people were walking across it. Thankfully that was before climate change was invented, there would be a complete panic, probably involving martial law, if that happened today under a Democrat president / senate.But, as I've said before, I don't think we're going to see another Democrat president in our lifetimes.

"Authoritarian ultranationalism" goes along with the big government beliefs of today's Democrats far more than it does with the individualistic beliefs of Republicans.

quote:

---

...they (liberals) also have far more in common with fascism than conservatives do, given their penchant for centralized governmental power and too much state control over business and industry, as we've seen most strikingly under President Barack Obama.

---

Fascism Is Not Conservatism If you believe every word they say, that they only want some power, and will stop when they get only a prescribed amount, that could be true. But it doesn't square with the history of human nature."Rich people richer", the standard line. Why would so many average Americans vote for Republicans if that's all the Republican party stood for?The Republican standard line is, of course, that the Democrats want to make "big government bigger", to further only their own power and money. And you would ask me, why would so many average Americans vote for Democrats if that's all they wanted? After all, the carbon credit trading that goes along with climate change would benefit only a few rich Democrats, it wouldn't benefit the average Democrat voter at all. Don't the average Democrats voters see the selfish desires of advocates of bigger government?The answer is, of course they do. They don't actually trust government much more than Republicans do. They have another motive - JEALOUSY. They really love the idea of cutting hard working, personally responsible Republican voters down their own idle size. It's the reason they don't fear climate change mandates, they have nothing to sacrifice. So many of them don't care about liberty, they take no advantage of the liberty that is available to them. They don't care about sacrifice, they have little to sacrifice. Many of them live in rented homes, the climate change that their home's heating system generates is of no concern to them, it's their landlords problem. If they're not on a government handout and actually work a job, any climate change they do in the carrying out of their job is their bosses problem, not theirs.It's always the same, they love government's attacks on the "rich", believing the rich will dutifully knuckle under to government mandates, make sacrifices, and keep on producing and supplying employment for them. What happens more often than not, is "the rich", being much smarter than government agents, find a way to satisfy government mandates by raising their costs not only enough to cover the mandates, but to include a nice little raise for themselves, at the increasing expense of the public.My health care multiplied by 4 times during the second Obama administration.I'll take the side of less government meddling, and more free markets.

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