Americans Cannot Tell Truth From Lies

[arkieb1]

O.K got it no remarks about specific posters. I will however cut and paste word for word what they say and ask them what they mean by it, even if they delete it. I personally find very little of what you say to be "generic" and not coming from your own set of personal beliefs and agendas, but if you believe that carry on....

 

[redwood66]

O.K got it no remarks about specific posters. I will however cut and paste word for word what they say and ask them what they mean by it, even if they delete it. I personally find very little of what you say to be "generic" and not coming from your own set of personal beliefs and agendas, but if you believe that carry on....

Honey you do whatever you like. Bless your little heart. Have a nice evening or whatever it is right now in Australia.

 

[arkieb1]

O.K got it no remarks about specific posters. I will however cut and paste word for word what they say and ask them what they mean by it, even if they delete it. I personally find very little of what you say to be "generic" and not coming from your own set of personal beliefs and agendas, but if you believe that carry on....

Honey you do whatever you like. Bless your little heart. Have a nice evening or whatever it is right now in Australia.

And let me guess, there is supposed to be no passive aggressive or condescension in any your responses including those.... But you claim you don't do that, remember. Or is this one of those magic posts that will disappear into thin air too?

It's day time here really hot, dry and windy and there is a large bushfire within walking distance from my son's school, so if I've been off my A-game with anything I've said to anyone today I'm distracted making sure my kid's school isn't about to get evacuated.

 

[monarch64]

O.K got it no remarks about specific posters. I will however cut and paste word for word what they say and ask them what they mean by it, even if they delete it. I personally find very little of what you say to be "generic" and not coming from your own set of personal beliefs and agendas, but if you believe that carry on....

Honey you do whatever you like. Bless your little heart. Have a nice evening or whatever it is right now in Australia.

And let me guess, there is supposed to be no passive aggressive or condescension in any your responses including those.... But you claim you don't do that, remember. Or is this one of those magic posts that will disappear into thin air too?

It's day time here really hot, dry and windy and there is a large bushfire within walking distance from my son's school, so if I've been off my A-game with anything I've said to anyone today I'm distracted making sure my kid's school isn't about to get evacuated.

http://www.onecountry.com/southern-insults-101-things-your-mama-taught-you-1647755254.html

 

[ruby59]

O.K got it no remarks about specific posters. I will however cut and paste word for word what they say and ask them what they mean by it, even if they delete it. I personally find very little of what you say to be "generic" and not coming from your own set of personal beliefs and agendas, but if you believe that carry on....

Honey you do whatever you like. Bless your little heart. Have a nice evening or whatever it is right now in Australia.

And let me guess, there is supposed to be no passive aggressive or condescension in any your responses including those.... But you claim you don't do that, remember. Or is this one of those magic posts that will disappear into thin air too?

It's day time here really hot, dry and windy and there is a large bushfire within walking distance from my son's school, so if I've been off my A-game with anything I've said to anyone today I'm distracted making sure my kid's school isn't about to get evacuated.

http://www.onecountry.com/southern-insults-101-things-your-mama-taught-you-1647755254.html

http://onelinefun.com/insults/

Them aren't insults. Now, these ......

 

[the_mother_thing]

The point I was making badly, since you want to stick to the facts, is she is unqualified for the job and she basically bought that position. You either agree or disagree. If you like I will add she didn't buy her way in via Trump she bought her way in paying off members of the Republican party, a lot of members and a lot of money.

Well, judging by the fact I see only ONE of those names in the FEC campaign donation database as receiving a contribution from her (and it was jointly with her hubs), I'm gonna go with totally disagree & false for a thousand, Alex-Arkie.

How her family (parents, siblings, kids, second cousin 3rd removed, etc.) chooses to spend THEIR money is their business; I'd be darned if let my family tell me how to spend mine. If that were the case, my father would have me shelling out money hand over fist to the DNC, and that ain't gonna happen!

So, let's just see what Mr. & Mrs. DeVos DID contribute in 2016, courtesy of the publicly available FEC logs:
MITCHELL, PAUL III VIA FRIENDS OF PAUL MITCHELL 09/28/2016 1000.00
CONSERVATIVE SOLUTIONS PAC 02/25/2016 50000.00 201603209011621260
AMERICAN CROSSROADS 06/10/2016 50000.00 201607209021679955
ALLEN, JASON EDWARD VIA JASON ALLEN FOR CONGRESS 07/27/2016 2700.00
ALTICOR POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE ALTIPAC 11/04/2016 5000.00
*GRASSLEY HAWKEYE FUND 06/02/2016 5400.00
*GRASSLEY, CHARLES E SENATOR VIA GRASSLEY COMMITTEE INC 06/06/2016 2700.00
*GRASSLEY, CHARLES E SENATOR VIA GRASSLEY COMMITTEE INC 06/06/2016 2700.00
*GRASSLEY, CHARLES E SENATOR VIA GRASSLEY COMMITTEE INC 06/06/2016 2700.00
*GRASSLEY, CHARLES E SENATOR VIA GRASSLEY COMMITTEE INC 06/06/2016 2700.00
* joint contributions with the hubster
TOTAL: $146,900.

Her hubby - Dick DeVos - made the following (individual) contributions in 2016:
ALTICOR POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE ALTIPAC 11/04/2016 5000.00
BLUNT, ROY VIA FRIENDS OF ROY BLUNT 09/30/2016 2700.00
BLUNT, ROY VIA FRIENDS OF ROY BLUNT 09/30/2016 2700.0
TOTAL: $10,400.
COMBINED GRAND TOTAL: $157,300.
FTR: Hillary donated almost $2.8M to her OWN campaign (and you see what that got her? )

Now, about those pesky qualifications ... let's take a quick, 10,000' look at Ed Secretaries of days past; this isn't all encompassing; I just threw it together based on an hour's worth of research for gits & shiggles, but it hits the high points:

From an objective perspective looking at FACTS - DeVos is certainly not the 'Mother Theresa' of education, but she doesn't appear completely out of the realm either, or even the least 'qualified' (historically speaking). Six other Secretaries did NOT teach at all prior to taking post; of the four who did, only 3 were in K-12; most don't have a PhD; only 2/3s have a masters; and almost all former Secretaries degrees are non-Education related, many being Law (and we have enough lawyers in DC). And, considering the financial woes at the Dept. of Ed, I'm thinking she might - by virtue of her experience on education & other boards (coupled with an obvious sense for 'staying afloat vs sinking financially' - even be more uniquely qualified to help get the Dept's finances in order. She can bring in a host of more 'education'-experienced folks to serve as DepSec's, advisors, etc. ... just like every other Cabinet head has done/will do. In fact, I would challenge you to find more than a fat handful of historical cabinet picks (aside from Maddog Mattis ) who is actually EXTREMELY or even somewhat relatively 'experienced' in the departments they head up - regardless of party.

Cabinet heads are not brought in to 'do the work', but to lead those who do the work in the implementation of the President's policies. And c'mon ... she's a WOMAN!

In conclusion, and to get back on topic - THAT is how this American discerns "Truth" from "Lies". But ya'll believe whatever FB meme, tweet, fake news, union directive or PTA bulletin you want. I think she at least deserves a chance, and if she sucks eggs, or makes him look foolish in her performance, Chump will fire her. If someone here wanted to pick the SecEd, perhaps you should've run for President. Considering the clowns left at the end of this past election circus, my left toe probably would have won.

 

[monarch64]

Ruby, those are hilarious. The one about the family tree being a cactus! Ha!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Americans can't tell truth from lies?

Hmmm.

1. 1.2 billion Christians belive a virgin had a baby.
2. America is Christian country.

... Hmmmm.

I find that to be rather insulting, but I refuse to go as low as you chose to here.

...O.K I'll keep an open mind, I won't assume for one red hot minute that some of you share his views, I won't make those assumptions any more, I won't read between the lines of what you say, I won't misinterpret those posts that were on here plain for everyone to see that got thought about and deleted. I won't do any of those things.

 

[Ella]

Those of you posting passive aggressive insults, be nice, or don't participate.

I'm sick of the rude comments to each other on this forum, and am going to start to give longer time outs for personally insulting other posters even if it's wrapped in passive aggressive comments.

ACT LIKE ADULTS.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I wonder how you Arkie, can just ask others where they would draw the line and remove Donald Trump from office. Even if our conservatives gave you a FED-UP with Trump line in the sand, we still cannot just remove him. I think we are stuck with him for at least 4 yrs, unless he does something that is impeachable. So afar he hasn't.

I'm going to throw this out there for your reflection. You have said over and over again that Trump has done something unconstitutional. That has not been proved at all. You have been sounding as if you are an expert in our constitutional law. Even if his actions are found to be unconstitutional, that is no grounds for removal. Presidents are always testing the limits of executive power. Challenges are always being made by one group or another. The President makes foreign policy decisions based on his authority alone in cases of National security. He definitely made the mistake of blocking many holders of legal visa from entering the country. The Agencies have reversed that statement and only want the seven countries who are not here, in the country yet, and have no legal status as of now. The constitution does not protect those not living here.

If the appeals court lifts the ban, I have no doubt it will go to the Supreme Court, and there is precedent for a Pres, and not the courts who decide who comes into this country under National Security.

I will await the court decision.


Annette

Lies are accepted in American Society more now than at any other time that I remember. I runs thru the society.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@smitcompton EXCELLENT post!

I caught a clip of 'Papa Bear' last night discussing the issue of the Immigration Ban, the Courts' TRO, and the law ... as well as noting how it's an example of judges creating law from the bench vs. applying existing law to cases, as they're supposed to per our Constitution.

Here is the < 4min clip if you want to watch: https://youtu.be/EaTUrlknJv8

I haven't read the ENTIRE portion yet, but here is the law KG (who is/was an attorney) cited (8 U.S.C. 1182 Section f - about half way down the page): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Yes they can!. That's the reason why HC is not the POTUS. ..

 

[ruby59]

Yes they can!. That's the reason why HC is not the POTUS. ..

I heard some of the arguments last night.

I know that court is very liberal.

And it did seem they were straying way outside the original parameters of what a President is allowed to do to keep the country safe and adding their own interpretation to it.

And then I have read that if it does go to the Supreme Court that may hold up the newest nominee even more because he would probably be the tie breaker.

 

[ruby59]

I just saw some of the twiiter comments.

Now some are using it as a feminist battle cry because Warren is a woman.


So now are they saying if she had been a man, they would not have shut him down?

 

[monarch64]

I just saw some of the twiiter comments.

Now some are using it as a feminist battle cry because Warren is a woman.


So now are they saying if she had been a man, they would not have shut him down?

What does it matter what "they" are saying? Until Warren starts beating that drum, who cares? People are going to use whatever agenda suits them, and yes feminism gets misused with regard to things like this, so until the actual person who's been allegedly wronged starts hollering "sexism" I'm not paying any attention to that argument. Twitter commentary doesn't represent an entire side or party. And the tweets reported or reposted are the most inflammatory, extreme ones for the most bang for your pay per click buck.

 

[ruby59]

I just saw some of the twiiter comments.

Now some are using it as a feminist battle cry because Warren is a woman.


So now are they saying if she had been a man, they would not have shut him down?

What does it matter what "they" are saying? Until Warren starts beating that drum, who cares? People are going to use whatever agenda suits them, and yes feminism gets misused with regard to things like this, so until the actual person who's been allegedly wronged starts hollering "sexism" I'm not paying any attention to that argument. Twitter commentary doesn't represent an entire side or party. And the tweets reported or reposted are the most inflammatory, extreme ones for the most bang for your pay per click buck.

Tell that to the poster on the other thread who has gone bat crap crazy with her Trump tweets.

 

[monarch64]

I just saw some of the twiiter comments.

Now some are using it as a feminist battle cry because Warren is a woman.


So now are they saying if she had been a man, they would not have shut him down?

What does it matter what "they" are saying? Until Warren starts beating that drum, who cares? People are going to use whatever agenda suits them, and yes feminism gets misused with regard to things like this, so until the actual person who's been allegedly wronged starts hollering "sexism" I'm not paying any attention to that argument. Twitter commentary doesn't represent an entire side or party. And the tweets reported or reposted are the most inflammatory, extreme ones for the most bang for your pay per click buck.

Tell that to the poster on the other thread who has gone bat crap crazy with her Trump tweets.

Valid point. To be fair, though, it IS a thread titled "Tweets from a lunatic" and does contain tweets. So it's not like we weren't warned.

 

[lovedogs]

I just saw some of the twiiter comments.

Now some are using it as a feminist battle cry because Warren is a woman.


So now are they saying if she had been a man, they would not have shut him down?

What does it matter what "they" are saying? Until Warren starts beating that drum, who cares? People are going to use whatever agenda suits them, and yes feminism gets misused with regard to things like this, so until the actual person who's been allegedly wronged starts hollering "sexism" I'm not paying any attention to that argument. Twitter commentary doesn't represent an entire side or party. And the tweets reported or reposted are the most inflammatory, extreme ones for the most bang for your pay per click buck.

Tell that to the poster on the other thread who has gone bat crap crazy with her Trump tweets.

Valid point. To be fair, though, it IS a thread titled "Tweets from a lunatic" and does contain tweets. So it's not like we weren't warned.

Why is it necessary to complain about the "trump tweet" thread on this one? It makes things very confusing. If you (ruby) have an issue with how/why people are upset that Warren was silenced, ask the person who posted it directly, on the relevant thread.

 

[ruby59]

I just saw some of the twiiter comments.

Now some are using it as a feminist battle cry because Warren is a woman.


So now are they saying if she had been a man, they would not have shut him down?

What does it matter what "they" are saying? Until Warren starts beating that drum, who cares? People are going to use whatever agenda suits them, and yes feminism gets misused with regard to things like this, so until the actual person who's been allegedly wronged starts hollering "sexism" I'm not paying any attention to that argument. Twitter commentary doesn't represent an entire side or party. And the tweets reported or reposted are the most inflammatory, extreme ones for the most bang for your pay per click buck.

Tell that to the poster on the other thread who has gone bat crap crazy with her Trump tweets.

Valid point. To be fair, though, it IS a thread titled "Tweets from a lunatic" and does contain tweets. So it's not like we weren't warned.

___________________________________________________________________
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/elizabeth-warren-nevertheless-she-persisted-trnd/index.html


Apparently, it has moved beyond mere tweets.


And apparently, Warren is in the dog house with some of her constituents because of her support of Carson.

So I do not see her trying to move away from the publicity and support it is giving her.

 

[AGBF]

Below is an excerpt from a "The New York Times" (February 4, 2017) column by Charles J Sykes, who once hosted a conservative talk radio show.

"MILWAUKEE — If President Trump’s first tumultuous weeks have done nothing else, at least they have again made us a nation of readers.

As Americans grapple with the unreality of the new administration, George Orwell’s '1984' has enjoyed a resurgence of interest, becoming a surprise best seller and an invaluable guide to our post-factual world.

On his first full day in office Mr. Trump insisted that his inaugural crowd was the largest ever, a baseless boast that will likely set a pattern for his relationship both to the media and to the truth.

...​

Unfortunately, that also means that the more the fact-based media tries to debunk the president’s falsehoods, the further it will entrench the battle lines.

During his first week in office, Mr. Trump reiterated the unfounded charge that millions of people had voted illegally. When challenged on the evident falsehood, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, seemed to argue that Mr. Trump’s belief that something was true qualified as evidence. The press secretary also declined to answer a straightforward question about the unemployment rate, suggesting that the number will henceforth be whatever the Trump administration wants it to be.

He can do this because members of the Trump administration feel confident that the alternative-reality media will provide air cover, even if they are caught fabricating facts or twisting words (like claiming that the 'ban' on Muslim immigrants wasn’t really a 'ban'). Indeed, they believe they have shifted the paradigm of media coverage, replacing the traditional media with their own.

In a stunning demonstration of the power and resiliency of our new post-factual political culture, Mr. Trump and his allies in the right media have already turned the term 'fake news' against its critics, essentially draining it of any meaning. During the campaign, actual 'fake news' — deliberate hoaxes — polluted political discourse and clogged social media timelines.

Some outlets opened the door, by helping spread conspiracy theories and indulging the paranoia of the fever swamps. For years, the widely read Drudge Report has linked to the bizarre conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who believes that both the attacks of Sept. 11 and the Sandy Hook shootings were government-inspired 'false flag' operations.

For conservatives, this should have made it clear that something was badly amiss in their media ecosystem. But now any news deemed to be biased, annoying or negative can be labeled 'fake news.' Erroneous reports that the bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office or misleading reports that sanctions against Russia had been lifted will be seized on by Mr. Trump’s White House to reinforce his indictment.

Even as he continues to attack the “dishonest media,” Mr. Trump and his allies are empowering this alt-reality media, providing White House access to Breitbart and other post-factual outlets that are already morphing into fierce defenders of the administration.

The relationship appears to be symbiotic, as Mr. Trump often seems to pick up on talking points from Fox News and has tweeted out links from websites notorious for their casual relationship to the truth, including sites like Gateway Pundit, a hoax-peddling site that announced, shortly after the inauguration, that it would have a White House correspondent.

By now, it ought to be evident that enemies are important to this administration, whether they are foreigners, refugees, international bankers or the press.

But discrediting independent sources of information also has two major advantages for Mr. Trump: It helps insulate him from criticism and it allows him to create his own narratives, metrics and 'alternative facts.'

All administrations lie, but what we are seeing here is an attack on credibility itself.

...​

'There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts,' she declared. Among 'a large part of the population' what Mr. Trump said was the truth.

Why Nobody Cares The President Is Lying... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/sunday/why-nobody-cares-the-president-is-lying.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

I started by quoting part of the original aericle above which prompted this thread because the thread went in so many different directions afterwards. There has been another Op.ed piece in "The New York Times" that has the same thesis as this article. I wanted to post a link to it, too. The new article also makes the case that The White House is attempting to make lies so ubiquitous and frequent as to obfuscate reality and it states that this kind of lying is a prerequisite for fascism.The piece is "Am I Imagining This?" by Roger Cohen and it appeared on February 10, 2017.

Link...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/opinion/preserving-the-sanctity-of-all-facts.html?action=click&contentCollection=Well&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

AGBF

 

[Tekate]

You did not attempt to parse any of Forsetti's article in how it applies to conservative posters here. Therefore by your post, which I quoted, indicates his entire article applies. Which it does not. That is my opinion.

If I post something wrong I admit it. I don't agree with everything Trump does but meanwhile the left is trying to find, in the right, every psychological defect under the sun to justify why Hillary lost.

Hillary was the wrong candidate, she spoke down to people, people didn't trust her because Trumps team spent millions of money convincing every person that believed his campaign she was even more immoral, untruthful and evil and he was, and my personal favourite she must be untrustworthy or less of a person because she stayed with Bill... and those emails well we are all going to ignore Trump is essentially now doing the same thing. Me personally I don't care jack if the Dem's candidate was a monkey, they would still probably do a better job than Trump. So you see I'm over the fact she lost, and as I keep saying and the point you seem to be missing is that if you had a decent conservative currently in power with moderate or rational views I wouldn't even waste my time posting on here about it.

Trump should never have been your president period. And no we are not "going to get over it" because he is a corrupt immoral extremist.

Any self examination is absent. That is very convenient and not worth the thousands of words the very few conservatives here on PS have used to try to explain it to you. If it makes you feel better to posit that because I don't change my views to yours I must be a defective voter then posit away. Nothing I say will change your mind either.



Here is a bit from Dave Rubin formerly on Young Turks. This is my opinion also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8&t=7s


ETA - Actually this need to understand why a conservative here on PS could vote for Trump by some left leaners, for me, is baffling. I would never think to interrogate and bemoan another's choice in our most personal of civic duties.

Dave Rubin puts all progressives in the same basket, correct me but isn't that doing exactly the same thing? O.K I'll stop trying to understand why someone who is Jewish votes for a team that is essentially anti-Jewish, in the case of DF I'll stop attempting to analyse why someone who is Chinese has a wife who supported Trumps team who are again essentially anti-Asian.... I'll just go with the theory it's because you think he's better than Hillary and even though I accept she was a s@&* choice you were incapable of seeing Trump was an even worse one until he does something that effects you and yours personally.

Assuming facts here that Trump is an anti semite.

But I am seeing references to Hillary Clinton that "referred to Jews as 'stupid k***s'"

I am also finding other derogatory remarks she used to describe Jews and African Americans,

Did you get your information from here? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635882/Hillary-Clinton-called-disabled-children-Easter-egg-hunt-f-ing-ree-tards-referred-Jews-stupid-k-s-Bill-called-Jesse-Jackson-damned-n-r-claims-Bill-s-former-lover.html

Have you fact checked?
https://www.truthorfiction.com/dolly-kyle-makes-claims-hillary-woman-book/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/19/fact-checking-clintons-story-of-meeting-disabled-children-in-new-bedford-in-1973/

The ONLY place I see this is uncorroborated evidence.. no troopers, no girlfriends coming out and saying this stuff.

Did you believe these things about Clinton because you didn't like her and did not for the veracity??

You know the Clinton's SIL is Jewish?