The Right Side of the News

This is getting way old. Get some sunglasses, find an "invert colors" app, something. Just stop with the excuses for ignoring evidence.--Percy

We get tired of you shrugging off facts as projection and innuendo.

Well thank you for confirming, yet again that Trump supporters are enemies of truth and liberty.

Gosh, how thick are you? 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?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

That is correct. And the sooner the better. 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. 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.

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: I don't think you realized what you were saying, but I strongly agree with this paragraph characterizing Mitch McConnell as a scoundrel.--Percy

See this New York Times article from last year: What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall):

quote:

---

But Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

​

The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.

---

--Percy

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

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

My apologies.However, even Fox viewers don’t accept that ISIS is defeated and want the troops to stay Fox PollAnd I note that the whole issue there is an example of the turmoil in the Trump administration.

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

Can you please stop saying things that you're just making up?--Percy

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.

Of course you can't prove it. That's because you made it up. 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? Give me access and I'll figure it out for you. 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

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. 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. 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. Nothing's going to happen. They're not going to wall off the Rio Grande.--Percy