The General Election

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Dude.....you first used Alex Jones. Then you use a site almost as bad.

 

Then you actually talk about how horrible CNN is.

 

Do you have any credible site that can even come close to verifying anything you say?

 

 

This comment should go in that thread about phrases used.... Anyway, who is going to decide what is credible? Each of us do on our own.. like zoogs constantly using Vox (undeniable liberal slant). He thinks that one is good, while others believe it is biased.

 

Having a credible source is not important? Crap....at least use someone whose purpose in life isn't to actually make up stories and conspiracy theories.

 

Here's a hint. If you google someone's name and the internet spits out a description including...."conspiracy theorist"....it's a pretty good sign he's full of crap.

 

 

 

lol, not what I meant, but you can go with that if you want.

 

So, you think the internet is right about everything?

 

Ummm....no.....that's my point.

 

Or...hey....maybe I should believe someone who says things like this. LINK

 

"Yeah, when you’re trying to decipher cloak and dagger dirty tricks, it’s pretty hard to do. It’s just that then you learn that they were funded by western funding. Then you learn that it was the same (inaudible) connection, underwear bomber. Then those are big red flags that they were patsy provocateurs. The classic MO has been followed.

"And then yeah, it kind of becomes a red herring to say the whole thing was staged--because they have staged events before. But then you learn the school had been closed and reopened, and you’ve got video of the kids going in circles in and out of the building, and they don’t call the rescue choppers for two hours, then they tear the building down and seal it, and they get caught using blue screens and a email by Bloomberg comes out in a lawsuit where he’s telling his people to get ready in the next 24 hours to capitalize on a shooting.

"Yeah, so, Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey -- so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit. I appreciate your call."

 

Yeah.....so....now the Sandyhook shooting was a staged act with child actors.

 

But.....hey......why not believe whatever he says about a Presidential candidate.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

Dude.....you first used Alex Jones. Then you use a site almost as bad.

 

Then you actually talk about how horrible CNN is.

 

Do you have any credible site that can even come close to verifying anything you say?

 

 

This comment should go in that thread about phrases used.... Anyway, who is going to decide what is credible? Each of us do on our own.. like zoogs constantly using Vox (undeniable liberal slant). He thinks that one is good, while others believe it is biased.

 

Having a credible source is not important? Crap....at least use someone whose purpose in life isn't to actually make up stories and conspiracy theories.

 

Here's a hint. If you google someone's name and the internet spits out a description including...."conspiracy theorist"....it's a pretty good sign he's full of crap.

 

 

 

lol, not what I meant, but you can go with that if you want.

 

So, you think the internet is right about everything?

 

Ummm....no.....that's my point.

 

 

 

but didn't you just say this?

 

 

If you google someone's name and the internet spits out a description including...."conspiracy theorist"....it's a pretty good sign he's full of crap.

 

How do you know this is right?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

Dude.....you first used Alex Jones. Then you use a site almost as bad.

 

Then you actually talk about how horrible CNN is.

 

Do you have any credible site that can even come close to verifying anything you say?

 

 

This comment should go in that thread about phrases used.... Anyway, who is going to decide what is credible? Each of us do on our own.. like zoogs constantly using Vox (undeniable liberal slant). He thinks that one is good, while others believe it is biased.

 

Having a credible source is not important? Crap....at least use someone whose purpose in life isn't to actually make up stories and conspiracy theories.

 

Here's a hint. If you google someone's name and the internet spits out a description including...."conspiracy theorist"....it's a pretty good sign he's full of crap.

 

 

 

lol, not what I meant, but you can go with that if you want.

 

So, you think the internet is right about everything?

 

Ummm....no.....that's my point.

 

 

 

but didn't you just say this?

 

 

If you google someone's name and the internet spits out a description including...."conspiracy theorist"....it's a pretty good sign he's full of crap.

 

How do you know this is right?

 

Ummmm.....read my edit to my post I was writing when you posted this. It might give you some type of hint.

[huskerfan2000]

Actually BRB, I know there are false things said on the internet, and I am not saying this because I support Trump in anyway. I am saying this because, regardless of whether you (each of us) will admit it, you decide what is true and what isn't. Even so called facts are skewed to produce the lie you want to portray..

 

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

 

That was just an example..

 

Point is lies are everywhere, even in so called trusted sites.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Skipped the speech. I guess he's still angry? And still doesn't understand tunnels. Or ladders. Or catapults. Or how to throw something.

 

Ahhh, why watch Fox News when bnil summarizes everything so neatly for me?

 

Overall the speech was strong and tough, and I think he laid out the "why" immigration is such an important issue, whether its from a security perspective and protecting American citizens, or from an economic perspective to ensure illegals do not drive down wages and freeload on our society. With that said, I would have recommended 2 changes:

 

1. I would have brought the Angel moms out at the beginning to set the tone on why this issue is so important. He waited til the end and may have lost viewers by that time.

 

2. I would have spent more time discussing the final step (of allowing non-violent illegals to not be broken up).

 

Now if you look at most of the left-leaning media that you subscribe too, they claimed it was an awful day for Trump because he and the Mexican President did not agree on their discussion about building the wall. But that's the typical media approach to anything he does.

 

 

I said the Fox News thing in jest. We just get our media from completely separate sources, and that's fine. For what it's worth, about the red, you were wrong, that's just what you assumed they'd say. I caught only a bit of CNN but they covered it pretty fairly and didn't deride Trump. There's not really a way to spin that day as a bad day for him. I don't know about MSNBC or anybody else.

 

Agree to disagree about the blue. I think you're dead wrong. I'll try to find some stuff later tonight regarding this, but I believe that illegal immigrants are easily a net positive for the US economy as a whole. They DO pay into taxes, they don't get benefits. So they DON'T freeload. They may decrease wages in specific unskilled sectors, I'll have to look into that.

 

Also, they do NOT make America less safe. For every grieving parent who had a kid killed by illegal immigrant, I could probably turn out 5 parents who lost their kid to violence by an American citizen. There are studies to back up that illegals are LESS likely to commit crime, not MORE.

 

Frankly, I think it's utterly disgusting that Trump and his ilk try to paint undocumented Americans as dangerous murderers posing a safety risk. They don't do it because they care about fixing that "problem" or helping those parents or making America "safe again." They do it specifically because they're trying to scapegoat a group of people and manipulate the electorate emotionally for their own gain.

 

Just like Trump's Mexico or Louisiana visits. Do you think he did those because he truly wants to improve his own relations with Mexico or race to help Louisianans? Or did he want votes? I sure as hell know which option I'm going with.

[QMany]

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

 

That was just an example..

Presuming your numbers are even accurate, is anyone saying the other 96% has nothing to do with it and man is causing it all? Or is that a strawman? Should we not be concerned with the 4% we are contributing to and not try to improve?

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

Skipped the speech. I guess he's still angry? And still doesn't understand tunnels. Or ladders. Or catapults. Or how to throw something.

 

Ahhh, why watch Fox News when bnil summarizes everything so neatly for me?

 

Overall the speech was strong and tough, and I think he laid out the "why" immigration is such an important issue, whether its from a security perspective and protecting American citizens, or from an economic perspective to ensure illegals do not drive down wages and freeload on our society. With that said, I would have recommended 2 changes:

 

1. I would have brought the Angel moms out at the beginning to set the tone on why this issue is so important. He waited til the end and may have lost viewers by that time.

 

2. I would have spent more time discussing the final step (of allowing non-violent illegals to not be broken up).

 

Now if you look at most of the left-leaning media that you subscribe too, they claimed it was an awful day for Trump because he and the Mexican President did not agree on their discussion about building the wall. But that's the typical media approach to anything he does.

 

 

I said the Fox News thing in jest. We just get our media from completely separate sources, and that's fine. For what it's worth, about the red, you were wrong, that's just what you assumed they'd say. I caught only a bit of CNN but they covered it pretty fairly and didn't deride Trump. There's not really a way to spin that day as a bad day for him. I don't know about MSNBC or anybody else.

 

Agree to disagree about the blue. I think you're dead wrong. I'll try to find some stuff later tonight regarding this, but I believe that illegal immigrants are easily a net positive for the US economy as a whole. They DO pay into taxes, they don't get benefits. So they DON'T freeload. They may decrease wages in specific unskilled sectors, I'll have to look into that.

 

Also, they do NOT make America less safe. For every grieving parent who had a kid killed by illegal immigrant, I could probably turn out 5 parents who lost their kid to violence by an American citizen. There are studies to back up that illegals are LESS likely to commit crime, not MORE.

 

Frankly, I think it's utterly disgusting that Trump and his ilk try to paint undocumented Americans as dangerous murderers posing a safety risk. They don't do it because they care about fixing that "problem" or helping those parents or making America "safe again." They do it specifically because they're trying to scapegoat a group of people and manipulate the electorate emotionally for their own gain.

 

Just like Trump's Mexico or Louisiana visits. Do you think he did those because he truly wants to improve his own relations with Mexico or race to help Louisianans? Or did he want votes? I sure as hell know which option I'm going with.

 

 

lol, the PC attitude has gone to your head. They are not Americans, they are illegals.

[huskerfan2000]

 

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

 

That was just an example..

Presuming your numbers are even accurate, is anyone saying the other 96% has nothing to do with it and man is causing it all? Or is that a strawman? Should be not be concerned with the 4% we are contributing to and not try to improve?

 

 

 

I don't want to side track this thread much further. They are saying man is the cause, right? From what I have seen 4% is the number given.

 

Time will show this was a scam.. and all those conspiracy nuts will be correct, but viewed at the time as nut jobs. In time..

 

The bold is a strawman!!

[QMany]

 

 

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

 

That was just an example..

Presuming your numbers are even accurate, is anyone saying the other 96% has nothing to do with it and man is causing it all? Or is that a strawman? Should be not be concerned with the 4% we are contributing to and not try to improve?

 

 

 

I don't want to side track this thread much further. They are saying man is the cause, right? From what I have seen 4% is the number given.

 

Time will show this was a scam.. and all those conspiracy nuts will be correct, but viewed at the time as nut jobs. In time..

 

The bold is a strawman!!

Man is a cause.

 

You are claiming it is a scam, so I assume you are not concerned or want to do anything. That's not a strawman.

[knapplc]

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

Nature is all about balance. The other 96% of CO2 is accounted for by nature. If you add an unaccounted-for 4% to one side of the scale, it tips. If you don't correct it, it tips further.

 

Man doesn't have to be the SOLE source of CO2 emissions for man to cause a problem. All man has to do is upset the balance. Man is upsetting the balance.

[huskerfan2000]

 

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

Nature is all about balance. The other 96% of CO2 is accounted for by nature. If you add an unaccounted-for 4% to one side of the scale, it tips. If you don't correct it, it tips further.

 

Man doesn't have to be the SOLE source of CO2 emissions for man to cause a problem. All man has to do is upset the balance. Man is upsetting the balance.

 

 

Yeah, I understand that, but that is the skewed facts I was talking about. it ignores other outside influences.

 

Ok, I don't want to high jack this anymore. Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby agrees it isn't man (confirmed by Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom). Like I said, in time we will find this was a huge hoax.. IMO

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

Skipped the speech. I guess he's still angry? And still doesn't understand tunnels. Or ladders. Or catapults. Or how to throw something.

 

Ahhh, why watch Fox News when bnil summarizes everything so neatly for me?

 

Overall the speech was strong and tough, and I think he laid out the "why" immigration is such an important issue, whether its from a security perspective and protecting American citizens, or from an economic perspective to ensure illegals do not drive down wages and freeload on our society. With that said, I would have recommended 2 changes:

 

1. I would have brought the Angel moms out at the beginning to set the tone on why this issue is so important. He waited til the end and may have lost viewers by that time.

 

2. I would have spent more time discussing the final step (of allowing non-violent illegals to not be broken up).

 

Now if you look at most of the left-leaning media that you subscribe too, they claimed it was an awful day for Trump because he and the Mexican President did not agree on their discussion about building the wall. But that's the typical media approach to anything he does.

 

 

I said the Fox News thing in jest. We just get our media from completely separate sources, and that's fine. For what it's worth, about the red, you were wrong, that's just what you assumed they'd say. I caught only a bit of CNN but they covered it pretty fairly and didn't deride Trump. There's not really a way to spin that day as a bad day for him. I don't know about MSNBC or anybody else.

 

Agree to disagree about the blue. I think you're dead wrong. I'll try to find some stuff later tonight regarding this, but I believe that illegal immigrants are easily a net positive for the US economy as a whole. They DO pay into taxes, they don't get benefits. So they DON'T freeload. They may decrease wages in specific unskilled sectors, I'll have to look into that.

 

Also, they do NOT make America less safe. For every grieving parent who had a kid killed by illegal immigrant, I could probably turn out 5 parents who lost their kid to violence by an American citizen. There are studies to back up that illegals are LESS likely to commit crime, not MORE.

 

Frankly, I think it's utterly disgusting that Trump and his ilk try to paint undocumented Americans as dangerous murderers posing a safety risk. They don't do it because they care about fixing that "problem" or helping those parents or making America "safe again." They do it specifically because they're trying to scapegoat a group of people and manipulate the electorate emotionally for their own gain.

 

Just like Trump's Mexico or Louisiana visits. Do you think he did those because he truly wants to improve his own relations with Mexico or race to help Louisianans? Or did he want votes? I sure as hell know which option I'm going with.

 

 

lol, the PC attitude has gone to your head. They are not Americans, they are illegals.

 

 

It's not PC anything. Don't give me that garbage. I grew up with plenty of illegals. They're good people trying to make a better life for themselves, largely. They're not some violent criminals running around murdering and raping and leeching off the government.

 

I'm not for turning those people into a political football and treating them as subhuman.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

 

That was just an example..

Presuming your numbers are even accurate, is anyone saying the other 96% has nothing to do with it and man is causing it all? Or is that a strawman? Should be not be concerned with the 4% we are contributing to and not try to improve?

 

 

 

I don't want to side track this thread much further. They are saying man is the cause, right? From what I have seen 4% is the number given.

 

Time will show this was a scam.. and all those conspiracy nuts will be correct, but viewed at the time as nut jobs. In time..

 

The bold is a strawman!!

Man is a cause.

 

You are claiming it is a scam, so I assume you are not concerned or want to do anything. That's not a strawman.

 

 

The Straw Man is committed when a person ignores a person's position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

 

I never made any claim, nor does saying man made is false mean, we shouldn't do things we can. Man made is actually economic crippling crap via unnecessary regulations.

 

edited post, sorry doing too many things

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

Skipped the speech. I guess he's still angry? And still doesn't understand tunnels. Or ladders. Or catapults. Or how to throw something.

 

Ahhh, why watch Fox News when bnil summarizes everything so neatly for me?

 

Overall the speech was strong and tough, and I think he laid out the "why" immigration is such an important issue, whether its from a security perspective and protecting American citizens, or from an economic perspective to ensure illegals do not drive down wages and freeload on our society. With that said, I would have recommended 2 changes:

 

1. I would have brought the Angel moms out at the beginning to set the tone on why this issue is so important. He waited til the end and may have lost viewers by that time.

 

2. I would have spent more time discussing the final step (of allowing non-violent illegals to not be broken up).

 

Now if you look at most of the left-leaning media that you subscribe too, they claimed it was an awful day for Trump because he and the Mexican President did not agree on their discussion about building the wall. But that's the typical media approach to anything he does.

 

 

I said the Fox News thing in jest. We just get our media from completely separate sources, and that's fine. For what it's worth, about the red, you were wrong, that's just what you assumed they'd say. I caught only a bit of CNN but they covered it pretty fairly and didn't deride Trump. There's not really a way to spin that day as a bad day for him. I don't know about MSNBC or anybody else.

 

Agree to disagree about the blue. I think you're dead wrong. I'll try to find some stuff later tonight regarding this, but I believe that illegal immigrants are easily a net positive for the US economy as a whole. They DO pay into taxes, they don't get benefits. So they DON'T freeload. They may decrease wages in specific unskilled sectors, I'll have to look into that.

 

Also, they do NOT make America less safe. For every grieving parent who had a kid killed by illegal immigrant, I could probably turn out 5 parents who lost their kid to violence by an American citizen. There are studies to back up that illegals are LESS likely to commit crime, not MORE.

 

Frankly, I think it's utterly disgusting that Trump and his ilk try to paint undocumented Americans as dangerous murderers posing a safety risk. They don't do it because they care about fixing that "problem" or helping those parents or making America "safe again." They do it specifically because they're trying to scapegoat a group of people and manipulate the electorate emotionally for their own gain.

 

Just like Trump's Mexico or Louisiana visits. Do you think he did those because he truly wants to improve his own relations with Mexico or race to help Louisianans? Or did he want votes? I sure as hell know which option I'm going with.

 

 

lol, the PC attitude has gone to your head. They are not Americans, they are illegals.

 

 

It's not PC anything. Don't give me that garbage. I grew up with plenty of illegals. They're good people trying to make a better life for themselves, largely. They're not some violent criminals running around murdering and raping and leeching off the government.

 

I'm not for turning those people into a political football and treating them as subhuman.

 

 

By the very nature of being here illegal they are criminals, in that aspect, and are hurting real Americans by taking jobs.. yes, the company is also hurting real Americans by hiring them.

 

Regardless, they are not Americans, period.

[knapplc]

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby agrees it isn't man (confirmed by Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom). Like I said, in time we will find this was a huge hoax.. IMO

 

 

So you've found a scientist that thinks it's not man-caused.

 

NASA and 97% of the rest of scientists agree that man is tipping the balance.

 

Interesting that you believe man's 4% contribution to the climate is not a big deal, but you think the 3% of climate scientists who deny man's role are a big deal.

 

That's a very selective view of the facts.