Why this thread is in the Politics forum... because

[healthmyths]

Broadcast Networks Are Furious That Texas Buoys Actually Deter Illegal Aliens​

The media hate these buoys for the same reason that they hate any other barrier along our southern border:
because they make it harder for illegal aliens to enter the country.
And WHY do they want it easier for illegal aliens to enter?
1) Illegals will vote Democrat. Broadcast networks prefer Democrats. Broadcast networks GAVE over 94% to Democrats since 2008 to 2016.
This article proves the above statements: Broadcast Networks Are Furious That Texas Buoys Actually Deter Illegal Aliens

2) Another reason the MSM wants to make illegals Democrats is because financially the BIASED MSM donates broadcast time and hard cash to the Democrats. Proof?
a) Proof of the biased MSM that ABC,CBS/NBC alone donated $2.6 billion in free advertising for Democrats calling it "NEWS"!
Over 32.7 hours of coverage, from 7/29/2020-10/20/20). Everything You Need to Know About TV Advertising Costs
The average commercial costs $105,000 for a 30 sec. spot. Therefore in 32.7 hours , two 30 second commercials in a minute or total of 25,440 thirty second commercials
@ $105,000 or $2,671,200,000 In television advertising value.
"What they found was, over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage
of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.from July 29 through October 20"
Broadcast networks deliver 92% negative coverage for Trump, 66% positive for Biden: Study

b) Any of you that still think the MSM is not BIASED... please refute the following... prove me wrong!

Ballotpedia also reviewed three other analyses.
The Center for Responsive Politics found that 65 percent of contributions from those identified as journalists went to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle.
An analysis by MSNBC.com found that 87 percent of the 143 donors (who made contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign) gave to Democrats or liberal causes.[7]
The Media Research Center found that 94 percent of donors affiliated with five news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.

Fact check/Do 97 percent of journalist donations go to Democrats

ballotpedia.org

 

[mamooth]

Drowning children is bad.

Apparently, it's not PC among conservatives to say such things, but liberals have no problem speaking such heresey.

 

[BULLDOG]

Broadcast Networks Are Furious That Texas Buoys Actually Deter Illegal Aliens​

The media hate these buoys for the same reason that they hate any other barrier along our southern border:
because they make it harder for illegal aliens to enter the country.
And WHY do they want it easier for illegal aliens to enter?
1) Illegals will vote Democrat. Broadcast networks prefer Democrats. Broadcast networks GAVE over 94% to Democrats since 2008 to 2016.
This article proves the above statements: Broadcast Networks Are Furious That Texas Buoys Actually Deter Illegal Aliens

2) Another reason the MSM wants to make illegals Democrats is because financially the BIASED MSM donates broadcast time and hard cash to the Democrats. Proof?
a) Proof of the biased MSM that ABC,CBS/NBC alone donated $2.6 billion in free advertising for Democrats calling it "NEWS"!
Over 32.7 hours of coverage, from 7/29/2020-10/20/20). Everything You Need to Know About TV Advertising Costs
The average commercial costs $105,000 for a 30 sec. spot. Therefore in 32.7 hours , two 30 second commercials in a minute or total of 25,440 thirty second commercials
@ $105,000 or $2,671,200,000 In television advertising value.
"What they found was, over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage
of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.from July 29 through October 20"
Broadcast networks deliver 92% negative coverage for Trump, 66% positive for Biden: Study

b) Any of you that still think the MSM is not BIASED... please refute the following... prove me wrong!
View attachment 809465
Ballotpedia also reviewed three other analyses.
The Center for Responsive Politics found that 65 percent of contributions from those identified as journalists went to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle.
An analysis by MSNBC.com found that 87 percent of the 143 donors (who made contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign) gave to Democrats or liberal causes.[7]
The Media Research Center found that 94 percent of donors affiliated with five news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.

Fact check/Do 97 percent of journalist donations go to Democrats

ballotpedia.org

So investigative journalists who are in the best position to judge the integrity of all the candidates, and who would be better for the country predominately choose Democrats. That should tell you something.

 

[occupied]

Drowning children is bad.

Apparently, it's not PC among conservatives to say such things, but liberals have no problem speaking such heresey.

There's a strong sadism streak running through the right concerning immigration. Legal or otherwise. They can't even talk about it without sounding at least indifferent if not cruel. It's why we will never have immigration reform.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Drowning children is bad.

Yes it is.

So why are you encouraging them to be trafficked by cartels in the first place?

That's what the Democrats are doing, and no doubt you vote for them.

Which either makes you evil, monumentally ignorant, or both.

Sorry if that's harsh, I call it like I see it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes it is.

So why are you encouraging them to be trafficked by cartels in the first place?

That's what the Democrats are doing, and no doubt you vote for them.

Which either makes you evil, monumentally ignorant, or both.

Sorry if that's harsh, I call it like I see it.

So you think those are the only two possible outcomes? Trafficked by cartels, or drowning? Both are unacceptable, but drowning is the most heinous of the two.

Obviously, you have a twisted view.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

So you think those are the only two possible outcomes? Trafficked by cartels, or drowning? Both are unacceptable, but drowning is the most heinous of the two.

You....have....the....border.....wide.....fucking.....open.

Until that changes, you forfeit the moral high ground from the get go.

But I suspect you find yourself in that position quite frequently.

 

[BULLDOG]

You....have....the....border.....wide.....fucking.....open.

Until that changes, you forfeit the moral high ground from the get go.

But I suspect you find yourself in that position quite frequently.

Well, no.

 

[Hossfly]

The line of connected buoys have strings of razor wire hanging from the bottom and everyone in the world has been apprised of this fact. If someone is hog stupid enough to try and swim under them, they deserve to drown. Persons breaching the border without a visa is guilty of a crime.

Why is it OK for a person who illegally crosses the border welcomed with open arms when other migrants go through legal procedures and have to wait for months to be allowed entry? Then they periodically have to renew their green card or face immediate deportation.

So I say fuck the illegals and if they drown, so be it. That includes their bastard whelps.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Drowning children is bad.

That would be on the heads of those who bring children along when they engage in acts of war, such as illegally invading a foreign country.

If a bank robber brought his young kid along on a robbery, and the kid got fatally caught in the crossfire between the robber and a guard, is it the guard's fault? is it the bank's fault?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So you think those are the only two possible outcomes? Trafficked by cartels, or drowning?

If they weren't being trafficked, then they wouldn't be in that dangerous position.

You're on the side of the traffickers, the invaders. Everything that happens because of it is on you. You do not get to blame those of us who are opposed to this, for the results of what you unabashedly support.

 

[mamooth]

If they weren't being trafficked, then they wouldn't be in that dangerous position.

The law and good morality both disagree with your position.

You _know_ you're drowning children ... and you still do it. That says everything that anyone needs to know about you.

 

[Hossfly]

The law and good morality both disagree with your position.

You _know_ you're drowning children ... and you still do it. That says everything that anyone needs to know about you.

How are they drowning children? Illegal invaders who cant swim shouldn't be bring their whelps into the water. If they drown, we'll plant their asses with taxpayer money.
R.I.P.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The law and good morality both disagree with your position.

You _know_ you're drowning children ... and you still do it. That says everything that anyone needs to know about you.

I'm not drowning anyone, and I am not responsible for what criminals cause to happen to children that they bring along, or otherwise put in harm's way, when they commit their crimes.

This is all on your side, for encouraging, enabling aiding, and abetting these criminal invaders.

 

[candycorn]

The topic crystalizes why you just have to shake your head at the Biden Administration sometimes.

There is no remote basis in law for any state erecting a border of its own on a national boundary. None...zip...zero...nada. Its not a matter of debate; it's a matter of law. The Rio Grande along the border with Mexico does not belong to any state; it belongs to the United States and Mexico. These are federal waters.

Instead of filing an injunction and going through court, Joe should have just sent some operatives in to just destroy the whole thing. It would have taken a few afternoons; tops. Send Texas a bill for the removal.

But no..instead he did the diplomatic thing and went through the courts. While I almost always agree that this is the thing to do; if there ever was a case when this was NOT the way to proceed; this is it.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I'm all for importing Nile Crocodiles into the Rio Grandio

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no remote basis in law for any state erecting a border of its own on a national boundary.

There is no basis in law for the federals] government to refuse to do so.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution explicitly assigns the duty to the federal government to protect the states from foreign invasion.

The Biden Administration's refusal to do this, and its efforts to sabotage any efforts on the part of the states to defend themselves against the invasion that Biden refuses to defend them against, is a blatant and inexcusable violation of the Constitution.

Further, in aiding and abetting these foreign invaders, the Biden Administration is guilty of treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. This is a capital crime, punishable by death.

Joe Biden belongs in front of a firing squad, and not in public office. He has committed treason against the United States, and against the American people, and American lives have been lost as a direct result of his crimes.

 

[d0gbreath]

The line of connected buoys have strings of razor wire hanging from the bottom and everyone in the world has been apprised of this fact. If someone is hog stupid enough to try and swim under them, they deserve to drown. Persons breaching the border without a visa is guilty of a crime.

Why is it OK for a person who illegally crosses the border welcomed with open arms when other migrants go through legal procedures and have to wait for months to be allowed entry? Then they periodically have to renew their green card or face immediate deportation.

So I say fuck the illegals and if they drown, so be it. That includes their bastard whelps.

I had been wondering why they wouldn't just swim under the buoys. I'm always the last to be apprised of facts.
Now that I know that this inhumane war treatment is being used on good people, watch out.

 

[playtime]

There's a strong sadism streak running through the right concerning immigration. Legal or otherwise. They can't even talk about it without sounding at least indifferent if not cruel. It's why we will never have immigration reform.

the cruelty is the point.

 

[playtime]

That would be on the heads of those who bring children along when they engage in acts of war, such as illegally invading a foreign country.

If a bank robber brought his young kid along on a robbery, and the kid got fatally caught in the crossfire between the robber and a guard, is it the guard's fault? is it the bank's fault?

^^^ spoken like a true pro lifer ^^^