Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Fake News / Fake news about "Fake News"
« Last post by byram on Today at 09:57:32 AM »
Scarborough: ‘Fake News Media Was Pretty Damn Hostile Towards Hillary Clinton’

BY: Paul Crookston

MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" panel spent part of Friday’s show critiquing the unfairness of the "fake news media" toward Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.

The show's hosts and guests focused on accurate stories that they felt put Clinton in an unfair light, criticizing Trump for claiming the media hurt him during the election. Host Joe Scarborough said the media was actually hostile toward Clinton during the campaign, and that Trump's accusations of bias were "fake news."

"I think the fake news media was pretty damn hostile towards Hillary Clinton throughout most of the campaign," Scarborough said. "So that's just fake news, Donald."

USA Today reporter Heidi Przybyla added that accurate media stories about Clinton were part of a "hunt" against Clinton, and she "distinctly" remembers how leaked emails hurt the Democratic nominee's candidacy.

"It was the New York Times who broke the server story," Przybyla said. "She'll never forgive them."

"Hillary Clinton supporters can tell you how many stories were done on the servers," Przybyla added. "And the WikiLeaks, I'm sorry, I remember that distinctively because the media took every morsel, and it was doled out, day after day in small amounts—purposely—and every day, there was a new hunt to find what in there they could possibly write about."

Contradicting the point that the media damaged Clinton, Scarborough discussed how WikiLeaks actually did not matter because nothing embarrassing came out of its revelations. He said the most significant thing that came out of the email leaks was a risotto recipe.

"WikiLeaks emails that were released just made me feel better about Jon Podesta … the people that were around Hillary Clinton—that they were self-aware of the problems they were facing," Scarborough said. He did not specify what made her team so self-aware, but he have been referring to the way the Clinton campaign meticulously focus-grouped every aspect of her campaign, including her 84 potential slogans.

"At the end of the day, if they were trying to hurt Hillary with that, they didn't do it," Scarborough added.

Who watches this asshole?  :001_rolleyes:
In the News / 13 Reasons Why ... Single-Payer Would Be a Disaster
« Last post by byram on Today at 09:51:55 AM »
13 Reasons Why ... Single-Payer Would Be a Disaster
Laura Hollis

Democrats' love affair with single-payer health care is a textbook example of adolescent thinking. So here are 13 reasons why we must be grown-ups about ridiculous proposals like the one being floated by former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders:

1. Single-payer has problems nearly everywhere it has been implemented. Canada ranks dead last in wait times for care, as compared to 10 other wealthy western nations (including the United States). The United Kingdom's National Health Service is contending with long wait times, funding deficits and deteriorating patient care.

2. Countries held up as exemplars of single-payer are a fraction of the size of the United States. Canada has 36 million people. England has 53 million. Australia has 24 million. Finland has 5.5 million -- that's half the size of Los Angeles County. The U.S. has more than 326 million people.

3. Single-payer hasn't worked here, either. The news has been filled for years with horror stories about wait times and poor care (or no care) within Veterans' Affairs (despite its $200 billion budget) and the Indian Health Service. If the government cannot provide care for 9 million veterans (those actually enrolled in the VA health care system) or 5.2 million Native Americans, what makes anyone think they can provide it for 330 million Americans?

4. Sanders claims his plan will "save money." Bunk. Politicians' cost projections are always wrong. In 1965, Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost was $67 billion. Ditto for Medicaid, which was projected in 1967 to cost $12 billion by 1990 and actually cost $98 billion. Current projections put the costs of Sanders' proposal at $32 trillion dollars. If he's wrong (and I guarantee you, he is), then we're bankrupt.

5. You cannot have socialized medicine and open borders. Democrats don't want a border wall or deportations. They want lax border enforcement, "sanctuary cities," chain migration and single-payer health care. In practical terms, this will means tens of millions more people streaming into the country demanding "free" health care. Unsustainable.
In the News / Global Warming: Who Are The Deniers Now?
« Last post by byram on Today at 09:46:43 AM »
Global Warming: Who Are The Deniers Now?

Global warming is "settled science," we hear all the time. Those who reject that idea are "deniers." But as new evidence trickles out from peer-reviewed science studies, the legs beneath the climate change hypothesis — that the earth was doing just fine until carbon-dioxide spewing human beings came along — is increasingly wobbly.

A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience purports to support action by global governments to reduce carbon dioxide output in order to lower potential global warming over the next 100 years or so. But what it really does is undercut virtually every modern argument for taking radical action against warming.

Why? The study admits that the 12 major university and government models that have been used to predict climate warming are faulty.

"We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models," said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford and one of the authors of the study. "We haven't seen that in the observations."

And, of course, he's quite right. As we've noted here numerous times, the much-feared "global warming" trend seems to have halted somewhere around 1998. We know this is true because satellite temperature readings — the most accurate temperature gauge since it takes in the entire atmosphere, not just parts of it — show there's been virtually no change.

Based on the U.N.'s models, temperatures should have been shooting up sharply starting in about 1995. By this year, model temperatures show we should have had just under a 1.0 degree centigrade rise in temperature, a significant temperature spike in what is, in geological time, an extremely short period. It was those models that were used to sell the world on the idea that we needed a drastic reordering of our global economic priorities immedialy.

The reality: virtually no change in temperature. Put simply, the models are wrong.

And yet, advocates of the global warming dogma continue to ruin the careers of scientific apostates and hurl insults like calling skeptics "deniers" — which likens those who disagree about global warming science to those who "deny" the existence of the Holocaust — while denying painfully obvious facts about "climate change."

As we noted back in May, we noted that the Sunday Telegraph of Britain had reported that temperatures had dropped sharply early this year following the supposed "hottest year on record" in 2016. How could that be? 2016 was an El Niño year, which are always unusually hot.
New Political Poll Shows Just How Unreliable Polling Can Be

A new survey from NBC News/Wall Street Journal is the perfect example of the utter worthlessness of public polling as it relates to the implementation of government policy.

In the poll, which covers numerous political topics, one question stands out: “Would you favor or oppose a single-payer health care system in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by Taxes?”

To this question, 47% said they “favored” such a system, 46% said they “opposed,” and 7% said they were “not sure.” However, when pollsters added a bit of specificity to the question, the results changed rather dramatically.

To those who said they favored a single-payer health care system, a follow-up question was asked: “And, if you learned that virtually all health care costs would be covered, but it would eliminate employer-provided health plans and there would be only one government plan, would you favor or oppose a single-payer health care system?”

This more specified question changed the results by more than ten points. The final results are as follows: 36% said they would “favor” a single-payer plan, 55% said they would “oppose,” and 9% were “not sure.”

I believe we have been saying this for years, polls are worthless.

Village Idiots / Crazy Maxine
« Last post by byram on Today at 09:07:41 AM »

Maxine Waters: 'There Is No Law' on Impeachment
By Tyler O'Neil

On Thursday, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called on the black community to support impeaching President Donald Trump. She told a Congressional Black Caucus town hall that Congress can use any pretext for impeachment, and that "there is no law" restricting the practice.

"Impeachment is about whatever Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment," Waters declared.

While the congresswoman admitted that the Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors," she argued that the founding document suggests members of Congress could "define that."

"Bill Clinton got impeached because he lied," Waters declared. "Here you have a president who I can tell you and guarantee you is in collusion with the Russians, to undermine our democracy. Here you have a president who has obstructed justice, and here you have a president that lies every day."

"When is the black community going to say, 'Yeah, impeach him!' It's time to go after him," she declared.

Waters has become one of the most vocal advocates for a Trump impeachment, starting a catchphrase "Impeach 45." Many of her fellow Democrats have been rather hesitant to jump on board.

To some extent, Waters is correct that Congress determines the full meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors." She was wrong to suggest that "there is no law that dictates impeachment." The Constitution is the highest law of the land and its position on impeachment is clear.

Specifically, Article II Section 4 stipulates the reasons for impeachment.

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Unless Trump can be accused of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," he cannot be impeached.

While Waters claimed Clinton was impeached for "lying," he was actually impeached for perjury — lying under oath.

Words have meanings. Liberals may bandy about the word "treason" like it's going out of style, but that crime is expressly defined in the Constitution, and neither the nebulous "collusion" nor withdrawing from the Paris Agreement foots that bill.

The Russia "collusion" investigation would have to prove a great deal more damning — to Trump and his motives specifically — than it appears right now.

Even "obstruction of justice" would be a hard pill to swallow. It sounds reasonable at first, except when liberals consider the fact that if Trump obstructed justice by directing FBI Director James Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn, Obama was just as guilty of the same, when he delivered a not-so-veiled message that Hillary Clinton ought not be investigated. Andrew C. McCarthy has a solid, pithy, and poignant piece on this very point at National Review.

Good luck!  :rofl:

Islam & Terrorism / Amal Clooney’s Speech at UN Event, 9 March 2017
« Last post by Justaguy on Today at 07:52:59 AM »
In the News / Re: GOP health bill short of votes before deadline
« Last post by byram on September 21, 2017, 09:49:38 PM »
Oh, I know that and I agree that it's bullshit. Imo, the RINO's don't really want to repeal Obamacare and not being in the HC business is not on their menu. They are just as bad as the demokrats are when it comes to wanting to control your life.

The `RATS at least tell you up front they want to control your life. OTOH, the PUBS lie their asses off and promise you the repeal of Commiecare. 
Fake News / Re: The King o Debt Needs Our Help!!
« Last post by byram on September 21, 2017, 09:45:50 PM »
It depends on who the `RATS run in 2020.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10