Comments 1 - 30 of 30 Search these comments
"Undocumented"
I'm an undocumented driver, Officer. How dare you dehumanize me by calling me an Illegal Driver just because I don't have a license?
Trump will deport criminal undocumented aliens first. So, they *are* illegal.
One is undocumented if they do not have the required documents for the certification at hand.
One is illegal if they have broken a law pertaining to the situation at hand.
The correct sentence construction should be "Undocumented Illegal Alien".
New orders from the DNC: the "popular vote" argument isn't working. Commence "Operation Every Website We Disagree With Is Fake News"
President-elect Trump says how many immigrants he’ll deport
Is there some reason they can't call it like it is and say "illegal immigrant".
You really need a hobby. Who other than you gives a shit if they didn't say illegal. Everyone, except you apparently, knows what he is talking about.
Who other than you gives a shit if they didn't say illegal.
Anybody who cares if the MSM is independent should give a shit. For anybody who knows how the editorial word craftsmanship works, it should be obvious that such minor "omissions" are not accidental.
Anybody who cares if the MSM is independent should give a shit
Anybody ignorant enough to be swayed by the omission of the word illegal is far to dumb to care if MSM is independent. Are you equally upset at extensive and very creative editorial word craftsmanship at fox, breitbart, and the right wing echo chamber?
Are you going to answer the charges of News Manipulation you cheesy asshole?
Why are you harrasing people over their news sources, when you are spreading fabricated Bubbe Meises?
While you know Breitbart's stellar jounalism.
Who other than you gives a shit if they didn't say illegal. Everyone, except you apparently, knows what he is talking about.
The word "illegal" is the whole point. If you omit the critical word, you are lying.
It's kind of like saying "you should not eat mushrooms" vs "you should not eat poisonous mushrooms". Very different.
And no, not everyone knows what Trump is talking about. Because of the MSM, plenty of fools think Trump has something against legal immigrants, which he clearly does not. Remember that there will be a "big beautiful door" in the wall for people who comply with our laws, especially our immigration laws.
Everyone, except you apparently, knows what he is talking about.
I also disagree. The MSM as well as the Clinton campaign has dishonestly attempted to equate illegal immigrants with immigrants in general. Another analogy would be equating a homeowner entering his home with a burglar entering the homeowner's home.
I've been looking for what papers/magazines I'll subscribe to as a show of support to reporting. Looks like a good initial list to build from.
I've been looking for what papers/magazines I'll subscribe to as a show of support to reporting. Looks like a good initial list to build from.
Being in favor of blatant bias seems like a good reason to ignore everything you might post.
Being in favor of blatant bias seems like a good reason to ignore everything you might post.
I Read:
AP, The National Review, The Intercept, WaPo, NPR, Bloomberg, Aljazeera, Reuters , BBC, WSJ, NYTs, Snopes, Politico ... (and whatever Stratfor will allow : flippin pay gate)
I Glance At The More Fringe:
Drudge, Salon, Huffpuff ... and now Breitbart
I Shun:
FOX, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, other ultra right radio/YouTube
(Exception to the rule now for FOX - anything of interest that Megyn Kelly manages)
The point is, anti-establishment news doesn't have elevated value in itself, and being on the fringe is usually for a reason. News isn't like bands you liked in High School. The outlets don't have more worth the more obscure and unknown they are.
What you call in favor of bias, in me choosing to financially support some mainline outlets. I simply call that a counter to attacks on the press. Post Trump win I've only upped some donations to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, but I'll probably grab a few publications I previously hadn't, as show of support for press freedoms. After that I'll wait to see what's next to throw dollars behind.
Edit: "I'm the least biased person you know, trust me" (wink)
I read Drudge, Salon, HuffPost, Breitbart.
Fox pretending to be mainstream is too much to bare. Look, they will NEVER be allowed to guard the henhouse.
I read Drudge, Salon, HuffPost, Breitbart.
You got the extremes covered, and I guess can figure out the middle from that. :)
You got the extremes covered, and I guess can figure out the middle from that.
The comments left by the audience are even more useful. You can find out what is going on by detecting any change in tone (stories and comments).
I totally, as you know, believe in conspiracies. Read up on Operation Northwoods sometime and you will think you are reading about 9/11. But Trump is a fascist who believes that men are not created equal due to their monetary place. Of course this is a central tenet of Fascism.
So, as much as I want the conspiracies uncovered, Trump is a fascist and is potentially dangerous to all of us. I hope he doesn't go that far. Hopefully, his desire to do business "Trumps" his fascistic leanings.
Being in favor of blatant bias seems like a good reason to ignore everything you might post.
I Read:
AP, The National Review, The Intercept, WaPo, NPR, Bloomberg, Aljazeera, Reuters , BBC, WSJ, NYTs, Snopes, Politico ... (and whatever Stratfor will allow : flippin pay gate)I Glance At The More Fringe:
Drudge, Salon, Huffpuff ... and now BreitbartI Shun:
FOX, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, other ultra right radio/YouTube
(Exception to the rule now for FOX - anything of interest that Megyn Kelly manages)The point is, anti-establishment news doesn't have elevated value in itself, and being on the fringe is usually for a reason. News isn't like bands you liked in High School. The outlets don't have more worth the more obscure and unknown they are.
What you call in favor of bias, in me choosing to financia...
You posted your preference in favor of organizations who collaborated with a presidential campaign to provide flawed and biased news coverage. Unless you would like to retract some of that, your post largely amounts to blah blah blah.
You posted your preference in favor of organizations who collaborated with a presidential campaign to provide flawed and biased news coverage. Unless you would like to retract some of that, your post largely amounts to blah blah blah.
I listed my typical news haunts. If you think that's living in a bubble, because I don't embrace fringe messaging, I really don't care. I said I will be choosing some of the now targeted news organizations being listed, to give money to. They are being demonized, so I'm sure they must have value. You know what that feels like right? If it scares the right, and they move against it, if I care about it, I'm going to support it (just like I did with the ACLU, and PP).
Speaking of collaborating with a presidential campaign, how is Brietbart today?
Trump is a fascist and is potentially dangerous to all of us.
Reamins to be seen my tin foil hat friend. My "Mussolini meter" is ticking pretty good as I see more administration picks.
Will be interesting to see if he chooses something which unites Repub & Dem libertarian ideals against authoritarian threats to freedoms. He is probably smart enough to not touch those, but his cabinet may get a little willy and give us cause.
We shall seeeee ....
Twitter allows pedophile accounts posting Child Pornography but deletes conservative accounts
Several Twitter users were reporting child pornography accounts and sending them to 0hour, an active member of Anonymous. The Anonymous user, @0hour, was retweeting them and tagging Twitter, FBI and Disney. The YouTube user, notsafeforjerk, is providing up-to-date reports on #TwitterGate.
Hours later, 0hour got his account suspended while many of the child pornography accounts remained active, despite the child pornography being publicly displayed on the Twitter accounts.
#TwitterGate has become a topic of discussion on several message boards such as Reddit and /pol/.
As more people become involved in the manhunt, the scope of horror increases.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-elect-trump-says-how-many-immigrants-hell-deport/
With a good dose of PC mixed in. Headline:
Is there some reason they can't call it like it is and say "illegal immigrant". This sort of mealy mouthed talk is why people don't trust the msm. Here you have one of the major news organizations in the country and for whatever reason the cannot be honest.