251–260 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see the argument you're making. A free citizen has a right to keep their tax documents private. We can't feel entitled about that.
There's a difference between saying "It's my right not to do this thing" and "I can't do that thing". Either can be true or false. In the case of the taxes, he said the latter, and it was false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama's inability to get much done can be, objectively, attributed largely to an obstructionist Congress. While not wholly to blame, it certainly both slowed his agenda, and often caused him to gut key provisions from legislation in order to get it ultimately passed. Looking at initial drafts of the Affordable Care Act early in its history versus what ultimately passed Congress is a depressing reminder of how willing…
"Looking at initial drafts of the Affordable Care Act early in its history versus what ultimately passed Congress is a depressing reminder of how willing Democratic partisans are willing to compromise their values in terms of playing ball with an enemy team..." They made no attempt to compromise on the ACA. They didn't need to -- they passed it with zero GOP votes in the House and almost zero in the Senate. They didn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would point out, 9/11 hijackers were all here on legal visas[0] - so using that thinking is faulty. Our visa process seems to have faults, and I think this EO is a stop-gap to try to amend the issue. I don't particularly agree with ever choosing "religion" or "race" as a litmus test (which, as I have seen seems to be the underlying motivation, right from the horses mouth), but you have to agree there is justificati…
No, at least three were in the USA illegally on 9/11.[0] It's another example of Factcheck.org's unreliability. [0] http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reuters is certainly not nearly "unbiased". It may be better than US partisan news sources in covering US events, but their biases show elsewhere. E.g. when a terrorist attack by vehicle happened in Israel, Reuters reported it as "Palestinian dies in ramming attack"[1]. The Palestinian who died was the terrorist, but Reuters found that unimportant to mention. Another instance is where Reuters invented a quote from Is…
From a site whose raison d'etre is "Defending Israel from media bias", these examples are not very convincing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, at least three were in the USA illegally on 9/11.[0] It's another example of Factcheck.org's unreliability. [0] http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-...
I don't think that contradicts the other comment. They said that the hijackers all entered legally. You're saying that some didn't have legal status on the day of the attack. Both are true. That some of them overstayed or didn't meet the terms of their visas after arrival is interesting, but not very actionable unless you want to set up an internal passport system or something.
I don't think that contradicts the other comment.
That some of them overstayed or didn't meet the terms of their visas
Reuters is consistently my favorite news source. What I love about them is how they sell news to everyone, so they've got to make it as factual and unbiased as possible. Of course, like any news organization, they have a few biases, but I think that purely because of the position that they're in they are the least biased news source today. They might sell the same article to Russia Today, the New York Times, Fox, Al…
I almost exclusively read Reuters and have turned all my friends onto Reuters. If I could read the AP feeds I would read those too. I'm not looking for what to think, I'm looking for what happened, and Reuters tends to give me that, even if I miss out on some stories.
Here's an example: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3c437475b6384b91913d5ffee2b91...
Note the partisan wording and contrast that with their past, fawning articles about the Pelosi-run House.
"GOP pushes..."
"Republicans jammed..."
"... a warning shot that they might deploy brute political muscle..."
"With a near-toxic vapor of divisiveness between the two parties across Capitol Hill, nasty showdowns broke out..."
"Busting through a Democratic boycott..."
"...dominated by confrontation, even as lawmakers braced for an even more ferocious battle..."
"...fueled the fire by urging Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to 'go nuclear'..." (note that AP calls it the "nuclear option" when Republicans even consider it but used no such terminology when Reid actually implemented it in the last term)
"...Wednesday's abruptly called Finance Committee meeting..."
etc.
Today's SF Chronicle used a more severe headline for this article: "GOP Pastes 2 top Cabinet picks..." ("pastes" being American slang for a violent, successfully-landed punch, not adhering two items together)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees Yet it blocked MIT professors with work visas (initially even green cards until they backpedaled) just because they were born in Iran/etc. The EO is ridiculously hamfisted.
Though if you read Art of the Deal or have studied how Trump operates, his initial position on anything is always more than he wants. So they "backpedaled" on green cards and legal visas and still have what they really wanted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I know about "talk past the deal". But that's not how democratic leaders are meant to act, that's how dictators act. I feel like America is selling its birthright - a democratic republic - for the illusion of security. It's been happening ever since 9/11 but now it's even worse.
No, that's not how dictators act. How dictators act is they do what they want and if you resisted, they put you in jail or kill you. Dictators don't need negotiating tactics because negotiation is part of democratic process which requires consensus. Dictators don't negotiate, they dictate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give examples of Fox distorting things? I gave many examples of issues that the MSMs didn't seriously cover. I don't believe that there isn't "true" objective coverage but Fox News with Hannity and Carlson are really providing coverage that is sharp, and enlightening. They're actually informing the public instead of participating in the media churn.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, it's a good question. I am not a fan of trump, but I also want to see and verify examples of Fox distorting things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that contradicts the other comment. They said that the hijackers all entered legally. You're saying that some didn't have legal status on the day of the attack. Both are true. That some of them overstayed or didn't meet the terms of their visas after arrival is interesting, but not very actionable unless you want to set up an internal passport system or something.
I don't think that contradicts the other comment. Sure it does; " were all here on legal visas" is false. That some of them overstayed or didn't meet the terms of their visas Even those that did have legal paperwork all obtained it via fraudulent means by lying on their applications as to purpose of visit; technically speaking, none was here legally.