TUCKER CARLSON OUT AT FOX NEWS

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

But you understand what you're saying doesn't make sense, right? We can't have an open border AND Title 42 and border stops.

I'm not saying you can't believe the border is open if you're anti-reality. Just asking if you understand what you're saying.

I understand what I see.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2023/may/11/us-mexico-border-photos-title-42

You dumb fcks hide behind the skirt of "refugee status" and allow millions to cross, enter, get a nice 'Biden Cell Phone' and let them go.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/photos-show-migrants-crowding-el-paso-texas-streets

And still you try to claim the US border is not open. 

You're a fool.

[Americana Antifa]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I understand what I see.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2023/may/11/us-mexico-border-photos-title-42

You dumb fcks hide behind the skirt of "refugee status" and allow millions to cross, enter, get a nice 'Biden Cell Phone' and let them go.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/photos-show-migrants-crowding-el-paso-texas-streets

And still you try to claim the US border is not open. 

You're a fool.

Wait... when you say "the border is open," what exactly do you mean? Be specific. 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Wait... when you say "the border is open," what exactly do you mean? Be specific. 

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/1/135-million-new-illegal-immigrants-settled-us-unde/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/biden-migrant-mobile-app-users-released-us

Only a complete fool would not realize this is despicable. The border has been open and Biden invited these illegals.

[Americana Antifa]

22 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/1/135-million-new-illegal-immigrants-settled-us-unde/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/biden-migrant-mobile-app-users-released-us

Only a complete fool would not realize this is despicable. The border has been open and Biden invited these illegals.

You're not answering the question.

When you say "the border is open," what exactly do you mean? Do you mean America is letting in anyone who asks to be let in?

[Rebound]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Deficits are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. It all depends on the context. Obviously in a general sense deficits are to be avoided but there are definitely times when they're a good idea, and times when they're a horrid idea.

The “context” is simple: If there’s a Republican President, deficits are good, and if there’s a Democrat President, they’re bad.

[Rebound]

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/1/135-million-new-illegal-immigrants-settled-us-unde/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/biden-migrant-mobile-app-users-released-us

Only a complete fool would not realize this is despicable. The border has been open and Biden invited these illegals.

Only a complete fool — namely, you — would not realize the reason is that Congress has not passed a law permitting the immediate deportation of undocumented immigrants.  
 

You’re too dumb to know that you’re being played. The Republicans in Congress could pass legislation to allow this. Instead, the law says that once an immigrant touches American soil, he has to go through a due process hearing procedure, through underfunded courts.  The GOP doesn’t want to solve this problem, they want to keep acting like the sky is falling because of Democrats, when the GOP refuses to even propose any immigration reform.  

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Good morning Bully Servant Troll. I slept for 9 hours boy,

Well that will tend to happen after you down a 40 pounder of booze.

Quote

and now getting ready to produce and pay taxes,

LOL - would that be the taxes on a bottle of booze? It's a funny thing - i probably make more money than you but you probably pay FAR more in taxes thanks to your drinking.  Your fellow canadians appreciate your constant additional donations to our tax base LOLOLOL

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The “context” is simple: If there’s a Republican President, deficits are good, and if there’s a Democrat President, they’re bad.

No, that's not what 'context' means   That may be your own bias perception or your bias perception of others but it's meaningless.  You could very easily have a democrat rack up deficits and a republican do so and one be legit bad and the other be legit good, and vice versa. It depends on the context.

For example in Canada Justin is racking up MASSIVE defiicts the likes of which we've never seen in our history.  And he was doing so during GOOD times.  "bad"?  Yep.  Now - if PP gets in he'll move to balance the books, but if he tried to do that right away he'd have to cut services and spending so bad he'd likely do very serious damage to the economy and cause a lot of damage. He'll have to do it more slowly over a number of years.  So he'll run a deficit. Bad? No - necesseary. Not great, but it's the right thing to do.

even obama - rising deficits the day he gets in? Not good at all. During the height of the recession? Probably not a bad idea, not the time for massive cuts and a little stimulus might help.

So = there you go a democrat who's deficits were good AND bad

Context is everything. About the only thing you CAN say is both parties have not taken getting the deficit under control seriously.

[Nationalist]

35 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

You're not answering the question.

When you say "the border is open," what exactly do you mean? Do you mean America is letting in anyone who asks to be let in?

I mean the border is open. That Biden and his pack of ijits are allowing millions of illegals into the USA.

I also mean that anyone who supports this insanity,  is a fool.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Only a complete fool — namely, you — would not realize the reason is that Congress has not passed a law permitting the immediate deportation of undocumented immigrants.  
 

You’re too dumb to know that you’re being played. The Republicans in Congress could pass legislation to allow this. Instead, the law says that once an immigrant touches American soil, he has to go through a due process hearing procedure, through underfunded courts.  The GOP doesn’t want to solve this problem, they want to keep acting like the sky is falling because of Democrats, when the GOP refuses to even propose any immigration reform.  

But they did want to solve the problem. The Dems are the ones who don't. They WANT a large number of illegals into the country because it benefits them for several reasons.

republicans - "lets build a wall"

Dems - "No no no no!! Let them in!"

Republicans "well lets change things so they can't stay in America while we review"

Dems " No no no no ! That's cruel".

Republicans "well lets at least hold them so they can't just stay in the country illegally".
 

Dems - "You're locking up children! Youre evil! ".

Republicans  - "Fine, we'll just ship them to martha's vinyard then"

 

Dems - "What?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

[Americana Antifa]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I mean the border is open. That Biden and his pack of ijits are allowing millions of illegals into the USA.

I also mean that anyone who supports this insanity,  is a fool.

So you're using the phrase incorrectly. "Open borders" refers to a system where any and all immigrants are allowed in. The fact that Title 42 is still in effect means that the border isn't open.

Now if your argument is that we should be accepting less immigrants, or that illegal immigration has increased, that's another story.

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So you're using the phrase incorrectly. "Open borders" refers to a system where any and all immigrants are allowed in. The fact that Title 42 is still in effect means that the border isn't open.

Now if your argument is that we should be accepting less immigrants, or that illegal immigration has increased, that's another story.

As I said...you're a fool.

[Americana Antifa]

Just now, Nationalist said:

As I said...you're a fool.

U mad?

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So you're using the phrase incorrectly. "Open borders" refers to a system where any and all immigrants are allowed in. The fact that Title 42 is still in effect means that the border isn't open.

Now if your argument is that we should be accepting less immigrants, or that illegal immigration has increased, that's another story.

Nope. You're wrong. It's quite simple.

If the practical result of a program is that people can land in a country without completeing the 'due process' component in sigificant numbers, then the border cannot be said to be closed. 

You're trying to pretend it's a black and white thing and that's not accurate. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are released into the US each year and probably close to triple that get in undetected.

So - the borders are indeed open. The fact that there's SOME control doesn't mean they're closed.

Sorry - your definition is not realistic.  It's just another case of your "so what you REALLY mean is.."

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's not what 'context' means   That may be your own bias perception or your bias perception of others but it's meaningless.  You could very easily have a democrat rack up deficits and a republican do so and one be legit bad and the other be legit good, and vice versa. It depends on the context.

For example in Canada Justin is racking up MASSIVE defiicts the likes of which we've never seen in our history.  And he was doing so during GOOD times.  "bad"?  Yep.  Now - if PP gets in he'll move to balance the books, but if he tried to do that right away he'd have to cut services and spending so bad he'd likely do very serious damage to the economy and cause a lot of damage. He'll have to do it more slowly over a number of years.  So he'll run a deficit. Bad? No - necesseary. Not great, but it's the right thing to do.

even obama - rising deficits the day he gets in? Not good at all. During the height of the recession? Probably not a bad idea, not the time for massive cuts and a little stimulus might help.

So = there you go a democrat who's deficits were good AND bad

Context is everything. About the only thing you CAN say is both parties have not taken getting the deficit under control seriously.

You are ignorant of fact. 
If you had half a brain, you’d read this post any then ask yourself, “Huh. How comes the “news” I read made me think that Obama out-borrowed Trump?”

Let’s begin with the obviously stupid lie you just made: That Obama increased deficits the day he got into office.  
 

See, that proves that you are 100% ignorant of what a deficit is. In the first place, the US has an annual operating budget which must originate in Congress, so the President cannot possibly pass a budget on the very first day.  It takes nearly a year until a new President can be involved in increasing or decreasing the deficit. 
 

Also, you’re probably not aware that the deficit refers to ANNUAL debt, not TOTAL. 
 

Therefore, you’re too damn dumb to know that the DEFICIT under Obama shrank every year.  The 2009 deficit was $1.4T. That was from Bush’s last year. The 2010 deficit was $1.3T, which, dumdum, is less than $1.4T.

Along comes the shlthead, Trump, who immediately blew up deficits as high as $3.1 Trillion per year.

Total deficit spending under Obama: $6.7 T

Total deficit spending under Trump: $6.6 T

Note that Trump was President half as long as Obama, had no Iraq War and nearly no Afghan War to fund. 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You are ignorant of fact. 

You are ignorant of how english works.

22 minutes ago, Rebound said:

If you had half a brain, you’d read this post any then ask yourself, “Huh. How comes the “news” I read made me think that Obama out-borrowed Trump?”

Yes - it would take someone with half a brain to think that. Someone with a full brain would note that a) - nobody mentioned who borrowed more and b) it's not really relevant to the discussion. and c) you still don't understand what 'context' is. 

Quote

Let’s begin with the obviously stupid lie you just made: That Obama increased deficits the day he got into office.

Ahem. 

Obama took office during the Great Recession. He immediately needed to spend billions to stop it. He convinced Congress to add $253 billion from the economic stimulus package to Bush’s FY 2009 budget. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added an additional $534 billion over the rest of Obama’s terms.7

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151

Sooo = that would make you the liar



22 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

See, that proves that you are 100% ignorant of what a deficit is. In the first place, the US has an annual operating budget which must originate in Congress, so the President cannot possibly pass a budget on the very first day.

yeah they can. ROFLMAO - you didn't know that?   They can use all kinds of methods to increase spending. 

However - if you were an intelligent person you would have realized that the example was just that - an example. It wasn't actually intended to suggest he literally raised spending the first day in office.  Sorry - i didn't realize your english was so  weak. I'll try to dumb it down for you in the future.

22 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

Also, you’re probably not aware that the deficit refers to ANNUAL debt, not TOTAL.

I was literaly talking about annual.

22 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

Therefore, you’re too damn dumb to know that the DEFICIT under Obama shrank every year.  

Did i ever say it didn't? 

There seems to be two problems here. 1 )  you're wayyyy to stupid for this conversation. You don't understand what was said or how any of this works.  and 2) you're a bit of a liar.   You've claimed a few times there  that i said things which i never said. 

You fail.  Try harder next time.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

well some argue it that way too. 
 

The thing is media stations who were prepared to talk about the story were threatened (and in one case banned) from twitter and facebook etc. With the threat it would be permanent. So - it wasn't JUST they didn't report, there was active efforts to repress it as well. A lot of people get their news from facebook and twitter etc. There were even threats that if they published stories about it on their own platforms and newspaper sites they would be kicked from twitter or facebook because they were engaged in spreading 'fake news'.   which we now know was quite true - it definitely was hunter's notebook.

 

Oh yeah - its a big deal and they're still looking at charges - and the important part is some of the emails implicated joe biden as potentially being "in" on taking money from various nations. So there's little doubt it had POTENTIAL to affect the election meaningfully. Whether or not it would have made a difference to the actual end result can't be said of course but you can see why some consider it 'cheating'.

I get that. It's not a completely unreasonable position - but at the same time it's not NOT cheating. Its definitely a deliberate attempt to interfere with the election by not just refusing to publish a story - which honestly i consider to be pretty damn bad in an election - but to actively force others not to as well. Using your definition i'm not sure you could say it was cheating by that def ...  but you sure as hell can't blame those who define it a little more loosely as feeling like it was cheating.

well - not quite true. Lets remember - some of pretty much all of that happens every election in the states, and they did indeed find some this time. It would have been mildly surprising if they didn't. however - the number of instances they found could not possibly have affected the outcome, so while there was fraud it didn't impact the outcome. There's always some fraud or glitches.

I listened to a couple of podcasts on the BBC, and I got the impression that the whole laptop  thing is still well up in the air, with no clear sign of where it will come down.

Some questions that occurred:

Why did the Daily Mail and Fox News refuse it before the New York Post took it on?  Both the latter and Fox News are owned by Rupert Murdoch.  Why go with the outlet that reaches fewer people?

Why did the New York Post,  Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon refuse to share the contents of the laptop prior to the election so MSM could verify the information?  No reputable media would run the story without verification.  They must have known that.

Why did the New York Post,  Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon not use the information to much greater effect themselves if it was so damning?

Some points to note:

When shared with the Washington Post after the election the contents appeared to have been changed. The emails were confirmed forensically and by contacting the senders, but changes to the data on the laptop made since it was taken in for repair do cast some doubt on the contents, if such doubt is required to make a case.

It appears that the most damning email, the "big guy" email occurred when Joe Biden was no longer Vice President, and had not yet decided to run for POTUS. 

I should add, I'm coming very late to this story, having not followed it beyond the occasional headline.  If I've included comments or questions that have been thoroughly answered/refuted by now, I ask indulgence.

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

U mad?

Mad? A bit. Usually, people who value their nations, get a tad upset when twits begin flooding their nations with illegal aliens. Which the vast majority of these "refugees" of yours, are.

[impartialobserver]

On 5/12/2023 at 6:03 PM, WestCanMan said:

I know what your understanding of the topic is because you're unable to engage in any factual discussions directly.

If you had facts on your side you'd be throwing down left and right, but all you can bring to the table is some ad hominem attacks and other drivel that a bot could put into any post without being challenged. 

Is there something that you could say to enlighten us all io? Do you have anything factual at all for us?  

Do you have an excuse for the death toll climbing sharply after 85% of the population was vaxed? Or why over 85% of covid deaths are among the multi-vaxed?

A good reason why we vaxed kids although none of them were dying?

A good reason why kids suddenly started dying of covid 3x as fast after they started getting vaxed?

I'd honestly love to have some answers to those things. No one has them. The best defence is "Several times as many vaxed people are getting infected now, that's why deaths are up."

Do you know why that sounds like BS? Of course not. And you don't even care. 

Deaths climbed, and the whole "vax prevents infection" thing was proven to be 100.00000% false", but you don't have any doubts about anything you heard, or the hundred back-peddles on vax efficacy, or have doubts about why we forced young people to vax now that you KNOW that it doesn't slow the spread.... You just question what I say, and I've been right this whole time.  

What do I know about you? Basically everything I need to.

Want proof? 

Right now I'm going to correctly predict that you don't engage in addressing any actual facts because like I said, you're just a leftist with no insights, facts, data or answers. Insults and opinions are your whole bag of tricks. 

 

This is not proof. This is you having no explicit quotes. Now show some character and show EXPLICITLY how I came to my opinions about the vax? Only direct quotes from myself will be considered sufficient. Your usual brand of overzealous, biased, drama queen-esque reading between the lines is not proof of anything. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I listened to a couple of podcasts on the BBC, and I got the impression that the whole laptop  thing is still well up in the air, with no clear sign of where it will come down.

Some questions that occurred:

Why did the Daily Mail and Fox News refuse it before the New York Post took it on?  Both the latter and Fox News are owned by Rupert Murdoch.  Why go with the outlet that reaches fewer people?

Who knows. IT's not like they all talk and know everything each other is working on. It was published shortly after the information was made public so it may be that the others just were a little slower to verify.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Why did the New York Post,  Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon refuse to share the contents of the laptop prior to the election so MSM could verify the information?  No reputable media would run the story without verification.  They must have known that.

Well first it went to the FBI and the Post article was 3 weeks before the election. But - remember that while they had some of the data they didn't have the actual laptop. So 'verification' would have been with the shop owner and they had his contact info. Eventually that IS how it got verified and the information released was proven accurate.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Why did the New York Post,  Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon not use the information to much greater effect themselves if it was so damning?

Like how? It got released to the media and the fbi, what more were they going to do?

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Some points to note:

When shared with the Washington Post after the election the contents appeared to have been changed. The emails were confirmed forensically and by contacting the senders, but changes to the data on the laptop made since it was taken in for repair do cast some doubt on the contents, if such doubt is required to make a case.

Well that'll be a matter for the courts.  But - without a doubt this was an issue that the public should have known about before the election.  And the PUBLIC could decide if the concerns were relevant or not. If the public felt it was too fishy to take the risk then they could decide that. If they decided it wasn't a huge deal then fine.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

It appears that the most damning email, the "big guy" email occurred when Joe Biden was no longer Vice President, and had not yet decided to run for POTUS. 

He had denied that ever happened tho, and if those ties were still in place then that was also a big problem.

Again - something for the public to decide if it's concerning enough.

My whole thing tho is that there was a very dedicated effort to make sure the public did NOT think about this during the election. An active campaign to prevent information from getting out there is misinformation in my books. Does it rise to the level of "cheating"? - Well that's a debate in and of itself but there's no doubt that a sound argument could be put forward that it was, even if there are sound counter arguments.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I should add, I'm coming very late to this story, having not followed it beyond the occasional headline.  If I've included comments or questions that have been thoroughly answered/refuted by now, I ask indulgence.

NO!!!! NO INDULGENCE!!!! YOU DIE NOW HERETIC!!!!!

Ahem. My deepest apologies, i appear to have been momentarily possessed by Steve Bannon.  It's my fault - i drank decaffeinated coffee today and that's when the evil spirits come for you....

[impartialobserver]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I listened to a couple of podcasts on the BBC, and I got the impression that the whole laptop  thing is still well up in the air, with no clear sign of where it will come down.

Some questions that occurred:

Why did the Daily Mail and Fox News refuse it before the New York Post took it on?  Both the latter and Fox News are owned by Rupert Murdoch.  Why go with the outlet that reaches fewer people?

Why did the New York Post,  Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon refuse to share the contents of the laptop prior to the election so MSM could verify the information?  No reputable media would run the story without verification.  They must have known that.

Why did the New York Post,  Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon not use the information to much greater effect themselves if it was so damning?

Some points to note:

When shared with the Washington Post after the election the contents appeared to have been changed. The emails were confirmed forensically and by contacting the senders, but changes to the data on the laptop made since it was taken in for repair do cast some doubt on the contents, if such doubt is required to make a case.

It appears that the most damning email, the "big guy" email occurred when Joe Biden was no longer Vice President, and had not yet decided to run for POTUS. 

I should add, I'm coming very late to this story, having not followed it beyond the occasional headline.  If I've included comments or questions that have been thoroughly answered/refuted by now, I ask indulgence.

 

I will admit that i know next to nothing about this topic hence why this is my first post and likely last on this topic. What is interesting is that the more honest one is... not knowing about something.. the angrier the responses. It is almost as if folks prefer being lied to than someone being bluntly honest. 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry - your definition is not realistic.  It's just another case of your "so what you REALLY mean is.."

?

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I will admit that i know next to nothing about this topic hence why this is my first post and likely last on this topic. What is interesting is that the more honest one is... not knowing about something.. the angrier the responses. It is almost as if folks prefer being lied to than someone being bluntly honest. 

Hold on -i thought my response was pretty even tempered!  I only called him a heratic once!

 

[impartialobserver]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hold on -i thought my response was pretty even tempered!  I only called him a heratic once!

 

you were not the subject of my post. 

Still, from years of engaging in this pointless activity.. the instant that I honestly state that I am no expert on a topic or do not know about a topic.. the wolves come out. This tells me that some really just want the conflict. No matter what is actually said by someone.. they need something to rail against.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

you were not the subject of my post. 

Still, from years of engaging in this pointless activity.. the instant that I honestly state that I am no expert on a topic or do not know about a topic.. the wolves come out. This tells me that some really just want the conflict. No matter what is actually said by someone.. they need something to rail against.

Well i guess all you can do is light a candle rather than curse the darkness.  I'm sure lots of people don't have an issue with someone admitting theyr'e not an expert.