A Survival Strategy for Conservatives
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As Special Counsel Robert Mueller racks up the guilty pleas for minor infractions by supporters of President Trump unrelated to Russian collusion while ignoring the crimes committed by members of the FBI, DoJ, and Hillary Clinton, it should come as no surprise that conservatives are playing the wrong game.
Even after Republicans won the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, they acted as if they had lost. Always on the defensive and forever begging for forgiveness from an ideology that never grants it, conservatives had better change their tactics or get used to coming in second place in a two-party race.
In the current political arena, conservatives are facing off against leftist Democrats in a blood contest in which the current rules favor only the left. It's more than just a lopsided playing field; it's a contest where conservatives are forbidden to score and are the only side charged with penalties. And yet conservatives continue to enter these contests expecting to be treated fairly.
A lie is only a lie if it emanates from the lips of a conservative. Otherwise, it's called a “misstatement” leading to no repercussions. Immunity agreements are granted only to those close to Democrats under investigation. Otherwise, everyone associated with a conservative under investigation is blackmailed with career-ending, bankruptcy producing charges.
Even as evidence mounts that the entire Russian collusion investigation was a fiasco, the liberal propaganda networks shout Trump's guilt. It mattered not that the whole debacle relied on manufactured evidence paid for by Hillary Clinton. Serious crimes by Obama and Clinton such as Benghazi, the VA, Fast and Furious, and IRS abuse that took both the rights and the lives of actual American citizens were covered as if they were of little importance. With all the congressional hearings and contempt of Congress charges, not a single Democrat lost his job.
How many times have we watched a conservative win a debate against a liberal only to be lambasted as being too much of a bully or mean-spirited? As guests on leftist media, conservatives are usually outnumbered two to one or three to one, if you count the host. Take conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who was physically assaulted on television by transgender reporter Zoey Tur, and it was he who was criticized for hurting his/her feelings.
It appears to be acceptable for conservatives to be labeled by their race, age, and sex without a hint of any objection by the media, whereas the mere mention of race, sex, or age by a conservative is grounds for ridicule, scorn, and being further labeled as a racist, sexist, or bigot.
In the 1980 movie My Bodyguard a character played by Chris Makepeace gets Adam Baldwin to become his bodyguard to help him against the tormenting antics of the bully played by Matt Dillon until Dillion himself gets a bodyguard. Dillon now can once again say or do anything he wants to Makepeace because when push comes to shove, his bodyguard steps in and assaults anyone challenging Dillon.
The politicized, propaganda media in this country is the bodyguard of the forces on the left. They are the protector for all Democrats and lunatic liberals who are allowed to say or do just about anything without repercussions or accountability as the media will mercilessly pounce on anyone challenging or questioning the absurdity gushing like Niagara Falls from leftist windbags. Conservatives currently have no such protector, and so the public is bombarded night after night with false propaganda hearing only the left's side of the story.
So conservatives must change the way they deal with a unified leftist front, and one such way is to have a united front themselves. Conservatives must also take the political game as seriously as the leftists do. In this country, conservatives still outnumber liberals, but you would never know it by the voting tallies.
Investments must be made by conservatives in the news reporting business, not to counter leftist propaganda with conservative propaganda, but to have a chance to explain all sides of a story clearly. The adage "The best defense is a good offense" applies to politics as well and conservatives would be wise to initiate steps to retake back ground lost over the past years. Such as demanding the right to have God put back in our schools, to have English as the official language, and verify that only United States citizens have the right to work and vote in this country.
These are only a few of the actions needed to bring this country back on course and realize the promise to Make America Great Again.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
65 visitors
We have got to this place by way of "lets not make waves" Paul Ryan type Republicans. As Ryan leaves the House in a few weeks, his legacy will be what he could have/should have done.
He'll shake that. He's not "going away" he's disassociating with the cookoo bird clan.
When the shit hits the fan as it's now starting to with gravity, if Trump is even in office in 2020 he will primary him. And because he disassociated himself from the cookoo right, he'll win unless another boy scout comes along.
He'll gladly point out the frustrations and the fuck ups of the Trump crowd much to their humiliation.
Ryan's not stupid, but he knows who are...
What legislative policies did you hope that Paul Ryan would have been able to accomplish
First, the only thing that Ryan accomplished was passing the tax cut. The things he should have done were:
1) Push for Trump's border wall and reform immigration of which he didn't bother mentioning doing until AFTER this past election.
2) Pushing hard for the repeal of the PPACA (Obamacare) and replacing it with actual common sense reform by negotiating with the states to require ALL Health Insurance companies to offer ALL their plans throughout the country and working towards standardizing the charges that hospitals and doctors can charge patients. (ie Stopping where one hospital charges $200 for bandages while charging $30 for an MRI, while another hospital charges $30 for bandages and $200 for an MRI).
3) Working to modernize the computer systems and programs used by the government and make it easier for multiple agencies to access the same data for easier use.
4) Pushing harder to get various witnesses to show up for Congressional testimony about various investigations instead of just letting them make demands and giving in to them.
5) Setting up a calendar so that the Congress doesn't have 10 months of vacation (hyperbole, I know) instead of being there to do their jobs.
Ryan always presented himself as a true Conservative. One who would balance budgets. Once he had the majority & the Speaker's job he should have started some legislation to cut spending and do something about that ominous mountain of debt left by George W and Obama. He talked about fixing the costly entitlement programs but never had a plan to fix the cost.
Then there were the issues involving the President. The repeal of Obama care, the wall and the rebuilding of the depleted military. No thought was given to how that was going to be done. The fact that Obamacare had already created dependency among GOP constituents was ignored.
At the very least an attempt should have been made to add punishment for sanctuary cities & states so that the President could deny federal funds to any municipality which defied federal law.
He was corrupted by the koch brothers, who are anti-American trash.
I guess you will be boycotting Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hills Resources, Guardian Industries, etc and definitely not buying or throwing out any StainMaster, Dacron, Cordura, and Antron fabrics/carpets.
They don't follow the Party line.
aside from being an unconstitutional proposal, which one?
I'd like to know when any individual child in public school hasn't been able to pray to their god(s) as they chose to do?
silent prayer isn't good enough now. mandatory prayer attendance in the gymnasium every morning and then requiring 10% of the students lunch money is more like it. probably won't be happy until every kid has a bible in their backpack, a bible class on their daily schedule, and saying a more devotional pledge of allegiance 5 times a day while facing a DC filled with your choice of progressive, moderate, or ultra conservative office holders, which have been vetted and approved by the republican party.
None of which is in his assignment but you can't explain that to the eternally ignorant.
Uh, collusion with foreign powers and their influence on our election is his assignment. That includes Hillary paying for the Steele Dossier that came from dubious at best Russian sources; and hasn't been partially- much the less fully verified.
Tax evasion, Trump mistresses being paid off, and Trump business dealings, are not; but he seems bound and determined to get Trump at any cost. Maybe he should spend some time looking at the legality of what he is doing- might turn out he has been violating the law for a very long time. The FISA grants were on very shaky foundations. Remove the Steele dossier and Carter Page; you know the fake Russian spy that hasn't been charged for a damn thing, and the FISA requests become a political fishing expedition by the Obama administration.
This is all from new questioning by republicans. Bold added by me for emphasis.
You're fucking hilarious!
Okay , let's see. Hillary's campaign hires the same group. They come back with "Hey, we have a retired BRITISH MI6 officer with some insider knowledge. The campaign says "buy it" .
Now, the retired BRITISH MI6 officer gets spooked because he uncovered more than he wanted as crimes of major proportion may have just been discovered ...
Like Flynn's vulnerability to blackmail. And possibly Trump being vulnerable too. Then they start matching it up with Page, who was already being investigated BEFORE the dossier.
So, not only does he turn this information over to the campaign, he turns it over to McCain and the Feds.
But, but, but, HILLARY! Really? Try and draw the line between Clinton and the Russians.
Since you drew that paralell...
Lying about a blowjob in the oval office was not the direction of the investigation, but it was found and used to impeach Clinton.
With that in mind, your derail about what's being found now is rendered moot.
Along that same line we now have the DOJ implicating him in a felony AND the written questionaire Trump demanded has been partially leaked showing....actually proving the very thing he was afraid of....he perjured himself.
Two ACTUAL crimes right in front.
Let's just for shits and grins play back a threat grom Trump that he has documents on the Dems and if they start to investigate him he's going to release them.
Is that called "blackmail" or "extortion" ?
The Steele dossier was paid for by conservatives. Nice try though.
es, you are absolutely correct. I was wrong.
That’s a lie. The Steele Dossier was paid for by the DNC and the HRC campaign
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/steele-timeline/?utm_term=.341794c8c85c
That’s a lie.
The information that the DNC gathered was nor PROVIDED by russians, it was ABOUT trumps ties to russia. Get your story straight.
The Steele Dossier was commissioned by Marco Rubio's campaign...
Comey-interview-transcript-12-7-18_Redacted-1.pdf
I don't give a fuck which way they lean, they are wrong. Get it?
The Amazon news service, a left wing rag.
Then maybe you should read more and comment less.
“The politicized, propaganda media in this country is the bodyguard of the forces on the left. They are the protector for all Democrats and liberals who are allowed to say or do just about anything without repercussions or accountability as the media will mercilessly pounce on anyone challenging or questioning the absurdity gushing like Niagara Falls from leftist windbags. Conservatives currently have no such protector, and so the public is bombarded night after night with false propaganda hearing only the left's side of the story.”https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/43650/a-survival-strategy-for-conservatives#c963318
"comment restored" and cite added [SP]
Did something happen to Trump and Fox News while I was sleeping?
No but someone deleted part of a direct quote from the seeded article so if you want to see what was deleted read the body of the article.
Sandy deleted that, if you had bothered to read the notice that she left behind.
Why should anyone take this thread seriously when facts are not part of it? There is no liberal media in the US, with the exception of Democracy Now that is viewed by maybe 20 insomniacs at 4:00 am. The fact that most of the media do not agree with Fox News does not make them liberal. Fox News is a known mouthpiece of the very conservative GOP and are not centrist, despite what you may want to claim or believe. The GOP can move farther and farther to the right but it doesn't mean that those who refuse to move with them are now liberal because of their refusal to follow along.
That which you quoted from the seeded article is 100% correct and I stand by and fully believe and endorse what was said.
Nonsense. Name one person on MSNBC who isn’t a hardcore leftist. Hayes, Maddow, Berman, and formerly Melissa Harris Perry all came from the Socialist Nation Magazine
name anyone on CNN who isn’t far left of center
Name anyone at NBC, CBS, or ABC who isn’t left of center
Joe Scarborough,
Here's two.
Compared to what? Carlson? Trump? Pence? If that's the case, EVERYONE is left of center.
Neither Trump nor Pence are paid employees on news channels
compared to past liberal but honest news journalists like Cronkite or more conservative news journalists like Huntley and Brinkley, those today on the stations I noted are radical leftists
Fox has one also in Sheppard Smith
Scarborough stopped being a conservative years ago when he took up with his radical leftist mistress.
Nicole Wallace comes from the Rockefeller socialist wing of the Republican Party.
shes pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage, she voted for Hillary and openly declares her contempt of conservatives
You mean his wife? Yes, they got married. Now, about him no longer being a conservative, why would you say that because he tells the truth about Trump.
Yeah, right. Just by what you posted here I know you've never watched her program and, know very little about her, she worked for the Bush Administration, George W.'s, she is still tight with them and, as far as I can remember, George W. is an utra-Conservative but, I guess you are talking about the "We want civil war conservatives" and, the "Jews will not replace us" conservatives.
Joe Scarbrough.
If Rachel is such a leftist why does she admire the last pragmatic Republican? She is still also a Catholic, despite their stance on LGBT rights.
Nah. Wallace is anti fascist.
I can see how she would be opposed by Trump supporters.
Change the channel? Or are you going with the, "everyone else is lying, trump is telling the truth!", line? Trump lies over 80% of the time, I would believe a used car salesman over trump any day of the week.
Why is it that some conservative people constantly complain about how bad they are being treated. It is always poor me, the media treats me bad, the Liberals treat me bad, boo hoo.
Even when in complete control of all branches of government, it is always someone else at fault.
If one wants god back in schools, better prepare for prayer rugs and different times set aside for such. Unless of course, only one religion is wanting to be allowed.
So are you all saying that the republicans in charge cannot do their jobs? Or is it perhaps, they found nothing.
That blows the fuck out of HA's contention that Trump is all about religious liberty.
Trump is an advocate for religious liberty for all Americans no matter their religious beliefs.
...........as long as they are right wing conservative Christian republicans.
No. I said All Americans. That would include those you mentioned but his religious liberty is all inclusive for those who have any religious belief or none at all.
Prove that outlandish statement.
Prove it is not true.
Oh, sorry, forgot the double standard being applied here.
Wrong.
Muslim ban? Why no Christian ban? Weird huh?
How can you logically have more religious freedom than we have now with all religions being equal and the state supposedly being neutral on religious belief?
What religious liberty do you seek that you do not already have? Remember that anything that you can do to them logically they must be able to do to you or the idea isn't equal as required by the US Constitution.
Islamists should be banned because anyone who says they follow the Quran wants everyone who doesn’t convert or submit to Allah to be killed or enslaved
Islam has been at war against the rest of humanity since 632 AD. We had a brief respite when we broke up the last Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed because of that breakup to plan and reconstitute the Caliphate with the goal of obeying the Qur'an command to bring the whole world under Islamic rule.
More Islamic scholars have openly stated that Islam is a political ideology first and foremost. The Qur'an commands Muslims to conquer and either place all under Islam or kill them.
"The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. ...Muhammad’s early successors, after Islam became supreme in Arabia, were determined to embark on a ceaseless war of conquest in the name of Islam. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state."
Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri in his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam published 1955
The Pakistani Islamic leader Syed Abul Ala Maududi (1903-1979), who was not a Wahhabi, declared that
non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, he said, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”
Likewise the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), also a non-Wahhabi, declared: “Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers]. Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible…. The foremost duty of Islam is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, with the intention of raising human beings to that high position which Allah has chosen for him.”
Qur’an:9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”
So, what sort of bullshit was passed off when he signed for the XL pipeline to go through sacred Indian lands?
And the first one wasn't called a "Muslim ban" for nothing...
Then of course the lying...." I saw muslims dancing in the street when 9/11 happened" and the bigots lapped it up!
"JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US" not a peep.
Anymore bullshit you want to pass off to us?
There isn’t any.
Indeed, that is the progressive way.
I’m correct, actually.
So banning a religion is your solution to a preceived problem in the US...Now if your ''advice'' was followed we would not have freedom of relgion. Next up Christianity could be banned.
Seems that all your talk about being a believer in freedom is mostly BS.
Thomas Jefferson says that you are very wrong.
Your post is a straw man that has nothing to do with my post
Wrong. Islam is first and foremost a political ideology committed to conquering, killing, enslaving and ruling the world. My previous post documents that historical fact
islam is incompatible with personal freedoms and any Muslim who says they believe and follow the Quran must lie when taking the US citizenship oath
Oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
In 1786, while serving as an Ambassador for the new United States, Jefferson asked Tripoli’s Ambassador to Great Britain what right the Barbary states had that allowed them to kidnap and slaughter the innocent crews of passing merchant ships.
According to Jefferson, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja replied that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
In essence, the Ambassador from Tripoli stated that their religion, Islam, gave them the right to kidnap and murder and enslave those who held different beliefs. Jefferson took this information to heart and remembered it well. He also spent time studying the Koran himself, to gain a better understanding of the enemy his young nation was facing.
John Quincy Adams , sixth US President (1825-1829), wrote after his presidency and before his election to Congress in 1830: “ The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. [Mohamet] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…. Between [Christianity and Islam], thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ….” (Blunt, 29:274).
Ezekiel 25:17:
And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.
Psalm 55:15 Let death take my enemies by surprise; let them go down alive to the realm of the dead, for evil finds lodging among them.
Your bible is no less violent. Also...
Since 9/11/01? less than 250 people have been killed by Muslims in the USA. Christians? Just over 210,000. Your fear of Muslims is bordering on being a mental disorder. You are far..... FAR...more likely to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim in the USA. Hell, statistically, you are more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a Muslim. Why are we not banning vending machines?
I beg to differ with you. The Islamic faith and Muslims have the very same religious rights in the US that everyone else enjoys. That faith is also restricted by the same strict separation of church and state the similarly prevents you from creating a Christian theocracy.
You need to learn what a strawman in and what it isn't.
James Madison had a few choice words on keeping religion out of government,
Shall I remind LFoD of Deuteronomy 13:6-11? The Abrahamic religions are the problem child. It has been 2500+ years of sibling rivalry and they still kill each other on a daily basis trying to decide which child their sky daddy likes the best.
more than one cult of political and religious extremists could fill in that blank
How much they lie when taking the oath? You cannot be forced to swear an oath to any god.
RE; Christian dominionism.
Bravo!
The bible also mentions that if a mans brother dies, it's his duty to bone his dead brothers wife. Not sure but....kinda creepy.
You aren't wrong.
More nonsense and a really bizarre view of relgion.
In the U.S. we have freedom of religion and your view that Islam isn't a relgion is pure BS...As for violent the Christian bible and the acts of violence the various Christians denominations have perpetrated over history are well documented.
He knows that, it's how they get around the freedom of religion argument, just say it isn't a religion. Standard issue moving the goal posts to fit an agenda.
No double standard. What you are asking is proof of intent. As it is now, it could be argued either way. (Though trump did call it a Muslim ban)
But as one can see, some of your political stripe want exactly that.
Plenty of double standard there.
Someone made a claim, I asked them to prove it.
I didn't ask for proof of intent. I asked for proof for his outlandish statement.
You might want to keep up better.
It seems that trumps own words calling it a Muslim ban are not enough for some people, so I bring up intent.
It seems with some, trumps own outlandish statements hold no merit.
Tsk, tsk, still not keeping up.
Do better.
This is what I responded to:
Nothing, nothing at all, to do with intent, or Muslims, or whatever the hell you keep bleating on about.
And then I asked him to prove it.
Then you jumped in for some unknown reason.
Except the Trump has no...………..religion...………..except Ivanka.
To me, that sounds like something a perverted mind would dream up.
That's all real nice, but doesn't prove what I asked and what the poster claimed.
I rate the answer an "F".
Be real nice if you can supply any proof for that claim.
All very good points. Well said.
I don't care what T-rump called it, it wasn't a ban which is what I said it wasn't before even the 9th circuit got a hold of it. The Supreme Court saying it wasn't a ban was pretty good confirmation.....
Maybe something you will understand. Obama saying it wasn't a tax, when we all on this side were saying it was.... Guess what? the Supreme Court said it was......
Sometimes presidents do not want to admit exactly what something is, or in the alternative, they are just plain stupid....
It wasn't a muslim ban, it never was, despite the media, liberal courts, and social media freaks trying to make it out to be one....
Just like it was a tax when the same people were claiming it wasn't.
Can you imagine the selected faux-poutrage if we stated that a ban on weapons that didn't include 95% of the world's guns was onerous? Or that we claimed something was a gun ban, and yet, didn't mention guns?
What kind of mind would think that a temporary ban on people from select countries was a Muslim ban that didn't affect 95% of the world's Muslims? How does that possibly make any sense at all????
Again, what I said to begin with, it is something that could never be definitively proven either way.
So I go by his words and actions.
The court didn't say it wasn't a ban, they said the president has authority in that realm.
Silly.
That's like discussing a contract with someone and then just signing it without reading it because of what you discussed.
If I said something was gun ban, would it be unreasonable for you to expect the word gun to be in the ban?
Trying to understand meaning here. A gun ban would be a ban, even if the word gun was not in it.
It was a temporary ban no argument there....
It wasn't a MUSLIM ban like was argued.... it was a ban against certain countries that had already been identified as security risks by the Obama administration. It wasn't a religious ban....
I will say a lot of it comes down to perception and I do blame trump for that.
It is Donald Trump for chrissakes. Nothing more to say. Of course...…….there is Ivanka...…...and that's just what it is.
Really? It came right out of Trump's mouth...
It's the "select countries" part that screws that up...
What kind of a mind would place a ban on Muslims from countries that cannot possibly attack us and NOT include the country that recruited, trained and paid for 9/11 ? Who actually did attack us.
And how would something not naming guns actually ban them?
It wouldn't--which is precisely the point--there was no Muslim ban--the left concocted it.
I never denied Trump said those words. What I deny is that he instituted any Muslim ban.
If we are going to hold everyone responsible for what they say on the campaign trail, how's about the "tax" the Obama Admin. argued was never a "tax" until the SCOTUS ruled in WAS a tax?
Ah, so no proof, just mindless drivel by someone fantasizing about the President's daughter.
Got it, thanks.
The author of that law called it a Muslim Ban and only stopped calling it that because the courts smacked him hard for it.
Next one he pulled out they called it a "travel ban" because the courts struck it down as a Muslim ban the first time.
The true explanation here Tex...
It isn't because of what the supreme court says it is and isn't.....
It's what T-rump says it is and isn't......
It's called TDS T-rump Derangement Syndrome, where the hate for the man outweighs any real fact.
I'm sure according to them the Obamacare fines are still fees and not taxes, irrespective of what the supreme court said they are.
The overlying condition is known as PDS; Politician derangement syndrome, manifests itself in the extreme belief that everything out of a politicians mouth is the absolute truth which bears repeating endlessly.
I've heard that over half the population suffers from it greatly, especially those around the major cities in districts that for some obscure reason have a "D" associated with it.... It's been rumored that there is no cure...... It's apparent that it manifests itself around election time when you can see the extreme sufferers of it screaming at the sky..... The worst of them running around wearing black hoods playing punk thug.....
Serious problem in this country.....
I challenge you to find one word banning Muslims in any Trump E.O..
Go ahead--should be easy seeing as how many have been CLAIMING it is or was a Muslim ban.
Well, the Obama Admin. called them fines.
Until they went to SCOTUS--then they became taxes because it was expedient to do so.
What is really weird is that someone could actually read an EO and determine, all on their own, that it is some "Muslim Ban" when the words Muslim and ban aren't in the EO.
Even weirder is that a "Muslim ban" would NOT include 95% of the world's Muslims.
But I would GLADLY read ANY links you have or proof you can provide showing that it was EVER a Muslim ban.
I damn sure won't hold my breath waiting on THAT, of course--since not a single person claiming it was a ban has proven it yet.
You're so humorous!
Now it has to say "Muslim ban" on the EO to satisfy you?
You must be the only living soul on earth that didn't catch that...Trump's own words, millions of people, AND the American courts saw exactly what it was and acted. The court slapping the shit out of the first one because of Trump's rhetoric and the EO itself....
But you remain the only person in the world that didn't know.
Were you shipwrecked on an island? Off on a 2 year assignment in the jungle?
Please tell me you're moving the goal posts because you're that literal and just can't help it?
It pains me to know that I think of you as an intelligent and witty person trying to play word games and actually thinking it would be considered a valued exchange by taking that route.
How on earth can it actually be a Muslim ban if it doesn't actually ban Muslims?
That is nuts.
Got anything to back that up? Did the courts state it WAS a Muslim ban?
Sorry, your personal opinion of me doesn't interest me. Am I the topic?
The courts tried saying that until it got to the Supreme Court and they approved it. The problem was their only argument was that it was a Muslim ban because of his rhetoric on the campaign trail. In fact, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, in his dissenting opinion of that court's ruling in favor of blocking the ban, pointed out that what the Presidential candidate stated on the campaign trail was protected political speech and in no way is applicable to ruling on the merits of the case as it was well within the purview of the President's office to create such an order.
Exactly. Some of the lower courts obviously read what specifically was NOT in the EO.
That isn't supposed to be what courts do.
You seem to persist in demanding Christians abandon their faith and convert to Judaism. I’ve repeatedly shown you that the Jesus and the Apostles taught that the laws of Moses don’t apply to Christians and Judaism teaches that they have NEVER applied to Gentiles
There is not a single Christian verse calling for conquering and ruling nations or killing non Christians
I'll stop noticing the bigotry and hypocrisy that they support by cherry-picking the Old Testament when they stop doing it and applogize for their past actions.
Is Deuteronomy also not part of your Bible? Do the 10 Commandments also not apply to Christians like yourself because they are also in Deuteronomy?
what an interesting article i found.....
i can't wait for the religious to read it and start denouncing/denying or justifying it .
Miss Cleo told me to expect cries of religious persecution by the secular progressives at NPR in the near future.
Oooooo, they is going to say "You is going to Hail boy!".
If you are going to put into play what a candidate says will happen when they are President as a basis for the Constitutionality of any order or law, then the PPACA should have been ruled unconstitutional due to not delivering the $2500 in savings for a family of 4 that was promised by Obama.
People did save money that they would have otherwise spent if the PPACA had not been enacted because the expected rise of health insurance cost was decreased.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for that $2500 to magically appear. Personally, my healthcare insurance costs have gone up, not down.
Perhaps to those who think that a decrease in the rate of the growth of spending is a reduction in spending, it MIGHT make sense!
It didn't bring the prices down $2500 as promised, going by what the 9th Circuit Court ruled regarding Trump's travel ban; you would have to say that because of that lack of success, the PPACA was unconstitutional and therefore should not exist any longer. It doesn't matter if it actually brought down prices for some or not; by the reckoning that Obama promised a $2500 savings and Trump stated that he would ban travel from Muslims on the campaign trails and the travel ban, which did not mention religion at all, was considered unconstitutional, the PPACA was unconstitutional as well.
The 10 commandments are not part of the mosaic law. The 10 commandments are Gods eternal law for all time. They were Gods law before the earth, are now, and always will be through eternity in heaven and on the new earth. Jesus refered to His law when He said to love the Lord God with all your heart (commandments 1-4) and your neighbor as yourself (commandments 5-10). All the ceremonial and community laws given to Israel upon coming out of Egypt until the crucifixion that no longer apply in the new Covenent were nailed to the cross.
When did your god fact check and approve the Bible?
And yet do you feel that violating them at will is allowed?
How grave is the punishment for bearing false witness?
In 1829-1830, with the release of The Book of Mormon: Another testament of Jesus Christ by Joseph Smith's translation of the Plates written by Mormon that were an abridgement of the Plates of Nephi.
The courts may well rule Obamacare unconstitutional with the tax supporting it according to Roberts since removed.
I’ve never read The Book of Mormon. I do believe that God approved The Holy Bible He inspired men and women to write.
Disagreeing with secular progressives is not bearing false witness. Its setting the record straight.
No...saying one thing on one seed then saying the opposite on another is lying no matter which way you want to try and spin it.
Not if one is lying about it....
What do you expect when the right elects the most divisive, criminal and dishonest president in history? The voters spoke in November, trump and his ilk are on their way out.
[Deleted]
removed for context
removed for context
removed for context
This isn't part of Mueller's mandate. If you wish, I am sure Rosenthal would be glad to add more investigatory areas for Mueller to delve into.
If you really want, I don't mind investigating gun running that started in 2005 with Project Gunrunner . Fast and Furious was just an offshoot, and not the only one.
Yet again another 'fluff piece' from the Russian SVR.
H A, where is the disclaimer? Oh yeah, another opinion piece from good ole' Mother Russia, right?
Really? Yet another off topic no value derailing trolling comment. American Thinker is an American opinion on the news site that’s been here a long time. Now stay on the topic of the seeded article about American conservatives or go try to derail someone else’s seed.
The American Thinker is a far right conservative site that specializes in emotional essays where they proverbially set their hair in fire and blame everyone but themselves for their actions. Its only useful as an exercise to spot logical fallacies.
Hardly. Propaganda is what it is. No Russians in the Clinton Tower.
And the verdict is:
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: American Thinker is a conservative daily online magazine dealing with American politics, foreign policy, national security, Israel, economics, diplomacy, culture and military strategy. The American Thinker demonstrates a right bias through wording and story selection. They have also failed a few fact checks such as this one. (7/18/2016) Updated (6/26/2017) Source:
Thus sayeth The Flying Spaghetti Monster himself. All hail! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/
How convenient you leave this part out....
More dishonesty peddled from far and near.....
hey, at least there's some consistency. bullshit media sources, bullshit president, bullshit version of xtianity.
This is a source for the "word of the week, for the weak" the ones they repeat, and repeat, and repeat...
Also known as DOG WHISTLE.
Your link doesn't work,
That paragraph is generic in his idiocy to all sites he labels as right bias according to his subjective bias. Thus it was not specific to the awesome American Thinker site.
And yet fits the desciption to a "T".
All facts...
Who knows if what is shared on social media originated from Putin's Troll Army?
Like the puss oozing out of the internet sores that are the SPLC and FFRF?
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has your boxers in a very tight bunch, don't they? Wat is it about the strict separation of church and state that bothers you so much? What do you fear about that rational concept?
It would neuter their sanctamonious holier than thou bullshit
Locking due to the seeder's absence.