Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You have given an assertion, have not given any evidence but want me to? Not my obligation. Your opinion and questions mean nothing until you support them.I am asking you a question. Can you answer it? Its a yes or no question, not an assertion.You have made an assertion. You have to offer evidence next, not demand it.Did obama order the border patrol to stand down on enforcing immigration violations? yes or no.
No, you have to give evidence to support your assertion, THEN ask questions. Remember opinion is not fact.OK, lets try again. What directions has the obama administration given to the border patrol relative to stopping illegal entry and returning those who get in illegally? Before answering, consider the thousands of illegal kids that have been brought across the border for us to take care of.You have given an assertion, have not given any evidence but want me to? Not my obligation. Your opinion and questions mean nothing until you support them.I am asking you a question. Can you answer it? Its a yes or no question, not an assertion.You have made an assertion. You have to offer evidence next, not demand it.Did obama order the border patrol to stand down on enforcing immigration violations? yes or no.
No, you have to give evidence to support your assertion, THEN ask questions. Remember opinion is not fact.OK, lets try again. What directions has the obama administration given to the border patrol relative to stopping illegal entry and returning those who get in illegally? Before answering, consider the thousands of illegal kids that have been brought across the border for us to take care of.You have given an assertion, have not given any evidence but want me to? Not my obligation. Your opinion and questions mean nothing until you support them.I am asking you a question. Can you answer it? Its a yes or no question, not an assertion.You have made an assertion. You have to offer evidence next, not demand it.Did obama order the border patrol to stand down on enforcing immigration violations? yes or no.
You need to give the evidence if you want to give facts to your asseertion.No, you have to give evidence to support your assertion, THEN ask questions. Remember opinion is not fact.OK, lets try again. What directions has the obama administration given to the border patrol relative to stopping illegal entry and returning those who get in illegally? Before answering, consider the thousands of illegal kids that have been brought across the border for us to take care of.You have given an assertion, have not given any evidence but want me to? Not my obligation. Your opinion and questions mean nothing until you support them.I am asking you a question. Can you answer it? Its a yes or no question, not an assertion.You have made an assertion. You have to offer evidence next, not demand it.
Ok, if you can't or won't answer the question, just say so. But we all know what directions have been given to the border patrol about stopping illegal entry and deporting those who enter illegally. That unconstitutional direction is why we have 20-30 million illegal aliens in the country today taking benefits that you and I are paying for. I do not understand why you, or anyone, would condone such lunacy.
You need to give the evidence if you want to give facts to your asseertion.No, you have to give evidence to support your assertion, THEN ask questions. Remember opinion is not fact.OK, lets try again. What directions has the obama administration given to the border patrol relative to stopping illegal entry and returning those who get in illegally? Before answering, consider the thousands of illegal kids that have been brought across the border for us to take care of.You have given an assertion, have not given any evidence but want me to? Not my obligation. Your opinion and questions mean nothing until you support them.I am asking you a question. Can you answer it? Its a yes or no question, not an assertion.
Ok, if you can't or won't answer the question, just say so. But we all know what directions have been given to the border patrol about stopping illegal entry and deporting those who enter illegally. That unconstitutional direction is why we have 20-30 million illegal aliens in the country today taking benefits that you and I are paying for. I do not understand why you, or anyone, would condone such lunacy.
You won't because you know it will not supportion your assertion.
One you overestimate the number of illegals here by 200 to 300%.
Two, you ignore they pay taxes.
Three, you don't quantify how much in benefits they get.
Can't take you seriously until you post seriously.
Break it down and cite it. I am not going to do your work for you. Do qualify up front is from the Heritage Foundation.You need to give the evidence if you want to give facts to your asseertion.No, you have to give evidence to support your assertion, THEN ask questions. Remember opinion is not fact.OK, lets try again. What directions has the obama administration given to the border patrol relative to stopping illegal entry and returning those who get in illegally? Before answering, consider the thousands of illegal kids that have been brought across the border for us to take care of.You have given an assertion, have not given any evidence but want me to? Not my obligation. Your opinion and questions mean nothing until you support them.
Ok, if you can't or won't answer the question, just say so. But we all know what directions have been given to the border patrol about stopping illegal entry and deporting those who enter illegally. That unconstitutional direction is why we have 20-30 million illegal aliens in the country today taking benefits that you and I are paying for. I do not understand why you, or anyone, would condone such lunacy.
You won't because you know it will not supportion your assertion.
One you overestimate the number of illegals here by 200 to 300%.
Two, you ignore they pay taxes.
Three, you don't quantify how much in benefits they get.
Can't take you seriously until you post seriously.
here ya go:
The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer
Break it down and cite it. I am not going to do your work for you. Do qualify up front is from the Heritage Foundation.You need to give the evidence if you want to give facts to your asseertion.No, you have to give evidence to support your assertion, THEN ask questions. Remember opinion is not fact.OK, lets try again. What directions has the obama administration given to the border patrol relative to stopping illegal entry and returning those who get in illegally? Before answering, consider the thousands of illegal kids that have been brought across the border for us to take care of.
Ok, if you can't or won't answer the question, just say so. But we all know what directions have been given to the border patrol about stopping illegal entry and deporting those who enter illegally. That unconstitutional direction is why we have 20-30 million illegal aliens in the country today taking benefits that you and I are paying for. I do not understand why you, or anyone, would condone such lunacy.
You won't because you know it will not supportion your assertion.
One you overestimate the number of illegals here by 200 to 300%.
Two, you ignore they pay taxes.
Three, you don't quantify how much in benefits they get.
Can't take you seriously until you post seriously.
here ya go:
The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer
15 years ago one could be confident anything one read from the Heritage Foundation was relatively straight up and truthful, whether one philosophically agreed with it or not . Today, its nothing but a PAC owned and operated by neoconservatives ever since Jim Demint took over as President. Its role as a conservative think tank has been turned into a shill organization pimping for the benefit of neoconservatives, just like Faux News.You need to give the evidence if you want to give facts to your asseertion.No, you have to give evidence to support your assertion, THEN ask questions. Remember opinion is not fact.OK, lets try again. What directions has the obama administration given to the border patrol relative to stopping illegal entry and returning those who get in illegally? Before answering, consider the thousands of illegal kids that have been brought across the border for us to take care of.You have given an assertion, have not given any evidence but want me to? Not my obligation. Your opinion and questions mean nothing until you support them.
Ok, if you can't or won't answer the question, just say so. But we all know what directions have been given to the border patrol about stopping illegal entry and deporting those who enter illegally. That unconstitutional direction is why we have 20-30 million illegal aliens in the country today taking benefits that you and I are paying for. I do not understand why you, or anyone, would condone such lunacy.
You won't because you know it will not supportion your assertion.
One you overestimate the number of illegals here by 200 to 300%.
Two, you ignore they pay taxes.
Three, you don't quantify how much in benefits they get.
Can't take you seriously until you post seriously.
here ya go:
The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer
^ Just so.
^^ Even if it were reputable, Redfish has to be build his own case with assertion and facts and emphatic conclusion. He very rarely gets beyond assertion. Probably, he did not graduate from High School.
15 years ago one could be confident anything one read from the Heritage Foundation was relatively straight up and truthful, whether one philosophically agreed with it or not . Today, its nothing but a PAC owned and operated by neoconservatives ever since Jim Demint took over as President. Its role as a conservative think tank has been turned into a shill organization pimping for the benefit of neoconservatives, just like Faux News.You need to give the evidence if you want to give facts to your asseertion.No, you have to give evidence to support your assertion, THEN ask questions. Remember opinion is not fact.OK, lets try again. What directions has the obama administration given to the border patrol relative to stopping illegal entry and returning those who get in illegally? Before answering, consider the thousands of illegal kids that have been brought across the border for us to take care of.
Ok, if you can't or won't answer the question, just say so. But we all know what directions have been given to the border patrol about stopping illegal entry and deporting those who enter illegally. That unconstitutional direction is why we have 20-30 million illegal aliens in the country today taking benefits that you and I are paying for. I do not understand why you, or anyone, would condone such lunacy.
You won't because you know it will not supportion your assertion.
One you overestimate the number of illegals here by 200 to 300%.
Two, you ignore they pay taxes.
Three, you don't quantify how much in benefits they get.
Can't take you seriously until you post seriously.
here ya go:
The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer
Faux News Lapdog...
Duck....here comes another custard pie in your kisser:
From the White House:
" What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is."
Of course, this is the sort of lie one expects from the Obama administration.
9. Now, for the truth.
a. "...Fox is a serious news organization that open minded liberals can respect." Kirsten Powers, "The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech," p. 119.
b. “I miss being able to turn on a straight newscast,” he said. “And it turns out the only place you can go to get one at 6 o’clock at night is Fox.” Other Americans are reaching the same conclusion. Kelly beat the networks on election night, and now Bret Baier’s hourlong newscast at 6 p.m., “Special Report,” frequently beats the ABC or CBS newscasts in select markets, including Atlanta, St. Louis and even Baltimore, a Democratic stronghold." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/magazine/the-megyn-kelly-moment.html?_r=0
c. "Time magazine’s Joe Klein used to watch CNN at 6 p.m.... “It is such an embarrassment to our profession that CNN has gone in the toilet the way it has. You know, I miss being able to turn on a straight newscast, and it turns out the only place you can go to get one at 6:00 at night is Fox.”
The audience mumbled a bit, but Greenfield said Klein has a point aboutBret Baier. Because at leastSpecial Reportis a straight newscast, unlike CNN’s frantic MH370 coverage and, well,Al Sharpton." Time’s Joe Klein Can’t Stand Watching CNN, Would Rather Watch Fox
d. George Will and Charles Krauthammer, Fox regulars, are two Pulitzer Prize-winning columnists.
e. Brit Hume and Chris Wallace have both won Emmys.
f. Two former CNN veterans, Ed Henry, former White House Correspondents Association Board President,- and Emmy Award-winner John Roberts.
g. Carl Cameron has covered every presidential election since 1996; " Stories he has broken include the breaches of security at theDEAand other Federal agencies in 2001 byIsraelisclaiming to be art students[2]andGeorge W. Bush's 1976drunk drivingarrest." Carl Cameron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
h. Shepard Smith "The Fox Report with Shepard Smithwas a top-ratednewscastin cable news and has been ranked third in the top programs inU.S. cable news.[5]Shepard Smith tied for second (along withDan RatherandPeter Jennings) as the most trusted news anchor on both network and cable news in a 2003TV Guidepoll. Shepard Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Fox News is the most trusted news network: poll"
Fox News is the most trusted news network: poll
But....if you are an Obamunist...." Fox is not a real news outlet."
How ya' like that, boyyyyeeeeee???
There is a difference between being trusted and being trustworthy.
Not in this context there isn't.
Fox is most trusted exactly because it is most trustworthy.....the only outlet that doesn't lock-step behind Obama.
Audiences recognize that.
Seems you don't.
Fox's audience are delusional. If they were actually fair and balanced, they wouldn't have been lock step with Bush. But they were. That is an indisputable fact.
If you want to watch a network that offers criticism of all presidents, try PBS.
If you want news without a filter, use the wire services. But don't pretend your agitainment is news. It has been proven not to be over and over, by various fact-checking organizations.
It is much like the old Pravda, trusted by a minority of the population who are brainwashed fools.
I've shown via journalism reviews that Fox is fair and balanced.
Folks watch what they agree with, and 30% of Fox viewers are Democrats.
Re-read the last quote I provided from your lord and master.....it says it all.
^ Just so.
^^ Even if it were reputable, Redfish has to be build his own case with assertion and facts and emphatic conclusion. He very rarely gets beyond assertion. Probably, he did not graduate from High School.
total bullshit from the resident bullshitter. Anyone who has been conscious during the last 7 years knows that obama has not allowed the border patrol to do its job and stop illegal entry.
your left wing attempts at dodging the truth are evident and pitiful.
your reputation on this board is well known, you are a known liar, fraud, and have zero credibility.
As to education, I will match my credentials to yours anyday. I have an MBA from the liberal bastion of Harvard as well as degrees from Wharton, a state university, and Georgetown. I won't go into more detail because you might figure out who I am.
But flail away, you just make yourself look more foolish and worthless with each new post.
"MBA from the liberal bastion of Harvard as well as degrees from Wharton, a state university, and Georgetown", and with this pedigree, you won't build a basic case as you would have been taught at any of those institutions.
Either you are fucking lazy and narcissistic, or you did not go to any of those schools.
Your assertions and feelings are not facts, Redfish. No one has to build a case to refute your assertion. You have to do far more than say "go to this web site."
You can add liar to lazy and narcissistic. I asked for your case, your evidence, so I could rebuttal. You gave me a web site. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic."MBA from the liberal bastion of Harvard as well as degrees from Wharton, a state university, and Georgetown", and with this pedigree, you won't build a basic case as you would have been taught at any of those institutions.
Either you are fucking lazy and narcissistic, or you did not go to any of those schools.
Your assertions and feelings are not facts, Redfish. No one has to build a case to refute your assertion. You have to do far more than say "go to this web site."
I would post my diplomas but they have my name on them and you might recognize it.
you asked for cites, I gave them to you. Just because they refute your lies does not make them invalid.
You can add liar to lazy and narcissistic. I asked for your case, your evidence, so I could rebuttal. You gave me a web site. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic."MBA from the liberal bastion of Harvard as well as degrees from Wharton, a state university, and Georgetown", and with this pedigree, you won't build a basic case as you would have been taught at any of those institutions.
Either you are fucking lazy and narcissistic, or you did not go to any of those schools.
Your assertions and feelings are not facts, Redfish. No one has to build a case to refute your assertion. You have to do far more than say "go to this web site."
I would post my diplomas but they have my name on them and you might recognize it.
you asked for cites, I gave them to you. Just because they refute your lies does not make them invalid.
All sorts of lies abound about Fox News, the far-and-away most popular cable station.
Only Fascists Assail Free Speech | Page 16 | US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumFox etc etc etc are still free to lie about everything, like that fascists are leftists lol...political gobbelygook/RW idiocy.
And this, in the same thread....
"...conservatives are more likely to watch biased "news" sources."
Now...where did blanko and the other guy get that misapprehension?
Here we go:
1. Every day, and in so very many ways, Obama proves himself to be emotionally, intellectually, and historically, ineligible for the presidency of the United States.
Proof of the above can be found in the United States Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..."
a. "The protection given freedom of the press is one of the most unique provisions in the Bill of Rights because it protects the freedom of an institution as well as that of individuals.
...the governed must have the information necessary to make wise decisions about the people they elect and the policies they want those people to pursue. Unless the consent of the people is informed consent, the democratic basis of a free society rests on very shaky ground. " http://www.godlessinamerica.com/freepress.html
2. The Obama to whom I refer is the same Obama who, on March 30, 2007, at a fundraiser, said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current presidentI actually respect the Constitution."
One might conclude that an individual who imagined himself to be "a constitutional law professor" would understand the importance of the first amendment, and a free press.
And...if he does.....he'd have to be some version of fascist to work against same.....wouldn't he?
3. "During an interview with President Obama that aired on CNBC yesterday, chief Washington correspondent John Harwood said, “When you and I spoke in January, you said — I observed that you hadn’t gotten much badpress. You said it’s coming.” Harwood added that since then, Obama still hasn’t received much critical press and wondered if his administration isn’t being “sufficiently held accountable.” Obama, however, disagreed:
OBAMA:It’s very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know,...." Obama: ‘I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.’
a. The above correctly suggests that, overwhelmingly, the press has done nothing but wave pom-poms for Obama....but it's not enough!
Obama is demanding nothing less than 100% submission of every news outlet.
Imagine the Republicans in that position...a single news outlet opposed to 'em: They'd be tossing confetti.
Not good enough for Obama!
He wants a one-party system, and a monolithic press.
Obama's aim: " A Dictatorship rather than a Presidency"
If you had done that at college, you would have failed. Your assertion is horse shit, only your belief. Obama is not a dictator by what you have provided. You fail.You can add liar to lazy and narcissistic. I asked for your case, your evidence, so I could rebuttal. You gave me a web site. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic."MBA from the liberal bastion of Harvard as well as degrees from Wharton, a state university, and Georgetown", and with this pedigree, you won't build a basic case as you would have been taught at any of those institutions.
Either you are fucking lazy and narcissistic, or you did not go to any of those schools.
Your assertions and feelings are not facts, Redfish. No one has to build a case to refute your assertion. You have to do far more than say "go to this web site."
I would post my diplomas but they have my name on them and you might recognize it.
you asked for cites, I gave them to you. Just because they refute your lies does not make them invalid.
the website gives all of the data that you asked for. If you think its invalid provide something else. Otherwise crawl back under your rock and go back to sleep.
