I just saw it on the Fox News Channel. Fake News? I wish.
Tuned into the News this morning, first Story;a man, Oscar Lopez Rivera, involved in over 100 bombings across America, was being Honored in a Parade...on American soil.
2nd Story; A Play, Shakespeare in the Park, same City as the Parade, New York,but in this Play, Julius Caesar isn't the main character, a likeness of our President is, as a bloody live rendition of his assassination takes place every night, there in the Park.
For the many, Left of Center, here on HP, I saw these stories on the Fox News Channel. Does that mean that Mr. Rivera wasn't really involved in bombings across America? Were the Images of him in the Parade, waving like a Beauty Queen, fake too?
What about the Images just witnessed, of a likeness of Donald Trump, being murdered, on a stage, for entertainment.
Is this fake too, because it is on the Fox News Channel?
Am I not really seeing what I think I am seeing?No it isn't fake. I don't think many things are 'fake news' so much as the spin any particular outlet chooses to put on it. If it is a conservative spin it is usually called fake news. A liberal spin gets called news. Using the same basic facts to start the report.
So true LTL. In the past, common sense was the greatest filter for making such determinations.
I really feel sorry for those going through life, waiting on the spin, to know how and what to think.
All that spinning must wreak havoc on heads not on straight to start with.Leftards who are virtue signaling for the assassination of Trump are too effing stupid to know that they are painting targets on themselves if Trump is now assassinated.
CNN's Fareed Zakaria hailed the Trump assassination lay as a "masterpiece". His employers sponsors it. CNN sounds more like the Communist News Network or ISIS.Oh my God, "masterpiece", had not heard that. I shouldn't be surprised.
I can't even imagine what would be taking place, if the person depicted in this 'Play' being murdered, was Obama or Mr./Ms. Clinton....
Sick stuff!
Isn't there a movie from a few years back in which George W. Bush is assassinated? Vaguely remember something.
Again....sick minds, sick stuff!I don't remember a movie like that, but I am very selective about what I watch. I wouldn't put it past the Hellywood Illuminati and the Deep State though.
Those that took the blue pill are caught in the Matrix where nothing is real.
Did you do any research at all, or did you just buy what you saw on Fox hook, line, and sinker. From just some brief research, it appears that Mr. Rivera had some connection to a group that carried out bombings, but was never himself convicted of any such thing. Is this a good reason to have him in the parade? Probably not. I wouldn't. Governor Cuomo, a Democrat, refused to participate because of it.
Most of the people at the parade weren't there to celebrate him. In fact, it's unclear if any of them were. Most of them appeared to oppose his appearance, but since they weren't there to celebrate him, they didn't boycott the parade.
So what exactly is your point? You're just outraged that some imbecile invited this guy to the parade? Or are you suggesting that it was an organized effort to push some agenda? If so, where is your evidence for that?
As for pretend assassinations, I dislike Donald Trump, but I think most Americans agree that people who are doing pretend assassinations and holding his severed head are going way too far, just like most Republicans came out and denounced the pictures of President Obama with a noose around his head when he was President.
I'll just say this because I've been thinking it: we're going to need a centrist to govern this country. Somebody neither the left or the right is super happy about, but somebody who respects both sides and finds a way to get people to compromise.Yes I did Cranky and so I changed 'responsible for' to 'involved in'.
I am glad that you agree, he shouldn't have been honored in a parade.
I never saw Obama's head in a noose. Not sure who did that or what the setting was, but if I had seen it, I would have instantly condemned it. I remember being at a Tea Party in Orlando and a person showed up with a sign similar to what you're describing, he was immediately surrounded and booed off the property (found out later that he had no interest in the Tea Party movement, he was just trying to find a camera, for his tacky sign)
What we really need....is a Constitutional Conservative governing the Country, haven't had that since Reagan.
Trump is a Centrist, as far as I can tell and people are more divided than ever.You think Trump is a centrist? That might be the craziest thing I've heard anybody say in reference to Trump.
Well he certainly is not Conservative, he certainly is no Ronald Reagan.
Ted Cruz scares him, so he had to take him out quickly.
He was a registered Democrat for most of his life. Not sure when he switched Parties.
He talks of rebuilding roads, bridges and infrastructure; I've heard that from the Democratic Party for decades.......not saying we don't need it, it has just always been a Democratic talking point (and just that...ALL talk, as if they care!!)
One of his confidants his daughter Ivanka, is Liberal and yet so very hated by the Left. Very odd!
Trump seems to me to be a middle of the road kind of guy. I'm sorry if you see that as "Crazy".
And.....if you had not have shared the ROPE pic, I would have gotten through life without seeing it. It is disturbing!
I think you might be sorely disappointed in how a "constitutional" conservative would interpret the second amendment.
Please explain just how a constitutional conservative interprets the second amendment ?
I've read a number of interesting interpretations of "A well-regulated Militia". Some look at that phrase as defining what follows and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is predicated under their duties in a Militia.
While I would not expect most conservatives to interpret it this way, somebody who is an expert on the Constitution and the intent of those who wrote it might.
Ultimately, I think that the modern interpretation of the second amendment is just that, an interpretation that has been modernized to accommodate changes in our culture.I do not see this Amendment as being open for interpretation, in the least!
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
If this Amendment was only to apply to Militia, Part Two would have never needed to be written.
Farmers, shopkeepers and Prarie dwellers, muskets in hand, helped to win the Revolutionary War.
They All depended on their guns for day to day survival.
This Amendment is So Important......it is the only Amendment which ends with the words, "shall not be infringed"
Infringed - encroached or trespassed upon, limited, restricted.Are you a constitutional scholar? Are you aware of the intentions of the founders?
A sentence has a subject. In this sentence, the subject is "A well regulated militia". Therefore, it is a possible interpretation of the sentence that the other parts of it modify the subject - a well regulated militia. Take out "a well regulated militia" and the sentence is pointless. This is one interpretation. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It's a valid interpretation and one that many constitutional scholars and originalists use.No I am not a Constitutional Scholar, but Antonin Scalia was!
"The Constitution is not a living organism, it IS a Legal Document and it says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say." -Justice Antonin ScaliaAnd so are the other justices on the SCOTUS. They don't all agree. And the sentence says what it says. And here's what it doesn't say: "people should be able to own automatic weapons." And we know the founders had no idea that such things would exist or wrote the Constitution with them in mind. So Scalia, like all the other justices, was interpreting the words based on his political leanings.
I'm so glad that our Founders were as clear as they were, as they sought to look out for future generations.
Except they weren't that clear and it's left up to the SCOTUS to interpret what they would have wanted or what they intended.
Should I, for instance, be able to have a personal nuclear weapon or a bazooka? Those are arms, after all.No Crank, I doubt they ever expected us to place cannons over our fireplace mantles or under our beds.
Surely, as they sought to look out for the best interest of future generations, they counted on the People always having healthy doses of Common Sense!So it's common sense to own an AK-47 but not common sense to own a bazooka?
Since you are so respectful of the U.S. Constitution, I assume you have read the following:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8
Article VI of the Articles of Confederation was the source of the Constitution's prohibition on federal titles of nobility and the so-called Emoluments Clause. The clause sought to shield the republican character of the United States against corrupting foreign influences.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#! … nts-clause
I'm sure you're very concerned about how this clause is or isn't being followed.You either respect the Constitution or you don't.
Not only were our founders forward thinking ,apparently far more so than the new left , but they engineered the constitution in lay-mans terms , Thhe second amendment -twenty seven simple words that forever protect the simple man from the perpetual over reaching of tyranical government .
For one thing , what is social engineering BUT the tyranny of government bared for all to see and forever the difference between the right and the left in America ? One that considers freedom as freedom from government and the other that want's all protection, entitlement and it's very own responsibilities provided by government .
AS a conservative constitutional believer , I know the second amendment for one , is written , no carved in stone and printed heavily in the blood of patriots and cannot be changed or" infringed ". I also believe that any alteration of the basic constitution would be a declaration of war against the constitution itself, something that has come dangerously close at times by the left , the real enemy of the our constitution .
Law is a fluid , the left and the right both know this . The constitution that apparently confuses liberals so much however is not fluid . It is fixed , it has always been fixed . The left in America loves to constantly bring the political and constitutional rhetoric close to the levels of inciting change , what they never realise however is just how often their "change " of anything is a revolving process , often times passing through itself in meaning several times , That old saying " If you keep changing things , before you realise it you are right back where you started ".........eludes the left , how many times the left has tripped over that saying in history is amazing .Just like the Bible. Conservatives love to hit everyone over the head with the parts they like and conveniently ignore the parts they don't.
I agree that the modern interpretation is modernized to accommodate changes in our culture but, that is how the constitution was designed. To reflect the thinking of the culture as it evolved. Nothing written in stone is of use in a changing world. It cannot be a living document if it cannot change with the times.
That said. I'm wholeheartedly against the federal government starting a push to create regulations. Once started it will only end in private ownership of firearms being banned.No, No, No.
The Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the United States.
The Bill of Rights aren't mere suggestions, they may not be etched in stone, but they exist for our Protection.
They exist to Limit the Government.
"The Constitution is not a living organism, it IS a Legal Document and it says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say."
- Justice Antonin Scalia
Come on crankalicious, you speak of doing research, but your own "brief research" leaves a lot to be desired - in the form of critical support.
You say "...it appears that Mr. Rivera had some connection to a group that carried out bombings..."
But, my "brief research" finds him described as; "one of the leaders," "the chieftain," and "the Mandela" of that organization. My "brief research" also found he was a co-owner/co-renter of at least one of the apartments found to be bomb making centers and schools, and that at his trail he "... admitted committing every act with which he was charged, but declared himself a political prisoner and refused to take part in most of the trial proceedings."
Yep, that is some connection alright, but I don't think it is the "some" that you intended to imply.
As for his supporters... it wasn't hard to find references to "His supporters followed, carrying signs that read, "Oscar Lopez Rivera is our Mandela." and "Lopez Rivera was cheered and booed as he stood proudly clutching a Puerto Rican flag when the parade stepped off..." and "A supporter in the parade heard her booing and shouted back, "This is your history!"
Yet your research left you unsure if any of the parade's viewers were there to support him? Wouldn't references to supporters marching with signs be a clue?
And as for the "imbecile" that invited him? It was the board of the organization that has been running the parade since 1958, and incorporated in 1995 as a non-profit, the National Puerto Rican Day Parade. The same organization that gave him their "National Freedom Hero" award, (which he declined to accept after the resulting public outcry).
That was your "imbecile."
.. and that was "some" brief research.
GAPoint taken, but again, depends where you look. My research, which was indeed brief, did not seem to conclude that his participation was approved by any more than a smattering of people.
That said, the approval of his participation was ridiculous and unwarranted.You are right crankalicious, it was a misstep, and it appears a lot of politicians and sponsors thought so too.
But even so, it is still a great thing that those "imbeciles" have to freedom to make such ill-considered public choices. From imbeciles and idiots to true Samaritans and sincere servants - we are one hellava mix.
ps. I do know where I would place di Blasio in that listing, and it wouldn't be among the true-hearts.
GAI think it's unfair to assume di Blasio was making any political statement with his participation. Who knows why he didn't bow out, but if politicians bowed out of every parade where somebody distasteful participated, they'd never go to a single parade. Unless he made an explicit statement of his support for this guy, I wouldn't hold it against him that he participated.
Well, Ok. It's fine that you see it that way. To be fair, I should too, but from my perspective, he already has too many demerits to warrant any leniency. (like the soda or table salt restrictions controversies)
You are probably more right than me, (yes, I know it should be "I") on this one. But I ain't budging!
GAWhat's your issue with the soda tax?
It's kind of an interesting issue. I'm not sure where I stand, but I live in a city that's trying to implement it.
Also, while I'm asking questions, what did you think of Trump's cabinet meeting today? Myself, I thought it was one of the most embarrassing things I've seen any President ever do and it's the most silly, weak thing I've seen Trump do so far. Is he really that lacking in self-esteem that he needed that? Further, does he really think anyone is going to buy it and that he's not going to be ridiculed mercilessly for it?I saw that, it was bizarre, embarrassing and scary. It is now being reported that Trump is seriously considering firing Mueller.
WTF?I read CNN's news item on this. I gotta say, this irritates me about CNN. Sure, I guess its news that some guy said that Trump is going to fire Mueller, but that doesn't make it evidence and I'm not sure it's even worth reporting. There's no credible evidence to back this statement up. Trump is probably considering nuking North Korea too, but nobody is reporting that.
Hi crankalicious,
My problem with the attempted soda tax is that it was an attempt at forced social engineering through the tax system. That is wrong. I know that the 'justifications', (defray medical costs of soda drinkers, etc.), may seem comparable to the justification for cigarette taxes, but I don't agree. It is a step too far.
As for that cabinet meeting... I don't know what to think. It seems too ridiculous to me to be sincere. When I first saw it I thought it was some kind of comedy skit. I still don't know what to think. If it was real, then every speaker at the table has lost a bit of my respect.
I am still waiting for the tweet that says, "Ha Ha, it was just a joke... gottcha!"
GAGA,
I certainly wish everyone on this board was as thoughtful and reasonable as you.
I am generally not for laws that make decisions for people they ought to be making for themselves. However, you say that the law is social engineering. How are the commercials for soda, directed at the poor and at children, not also social engineering?Commercials, though irritating they are, exerts their influence through persuasion. I would put that in a different category than legislative activity that directs and mandates behavior.
That's an easy one crankalicious, those commercials aren't our government and tax dollars forcing us to make the choices they want. Those commercials aren't taking away our right to choose.
ps. don't be fooled by what appears to be thoughtful reasonableness. I just got tired of being wrong and sounding foolish. Plus, my 'snarky' keyboard is due back from vacation any time now. ;-)
GASocial engineering, to some degree, makes sense, particularly when people are too stupid or too manipulated, to make good decisions. When these decisions start affecting the rest of us, like in the form of massive insurance costs, it makes financial sense to act. Given that sugary drinks and soda are disproportionately consumed by the poor, cause obesity, are bad for you, it's not unreasonable to apply a sin tax, similar to cigarettes, so that people think twice about using them and their taxes go to paying the costs to society.
That said, there is some line, as you note, and each of us has a place where that line gets crossed.... and my "line" was drawn right before you said, "... particularly when people are too stupid or too manipulated, to make good decisions."
In the context of forced social engineering by a government using the tax system as a weapon - you didn't leave any room for discussion on this one crankalicious.
I enthusiastically disagree. Although I may have some 'thoughts' about someone being "too dumb to come in out of the rain," those thoughts never ever make it to the stage of demanding that they do come in out of the rain.
GAI get it, but we're talking about two things with this bit of social engineering: reducing significantly, health costs that most of us pay in the form of high insurance premiums, and improving the overall health of a large group of people.
Social engineering is in every bit of society. Why, for instance, have a speed limit anywhere? Why have nutrition information on food? Why have regulations about air bags in cars? We're just discussing whether your line is being crossed.
And I'm not actually sold on the soda tax, but I think it's worth pursuing in a limited way and examining the results.Yes, social engineering is in "every bit of society," but it is not usually forced compliance by government taxation.
In your example of speed limits, our choice to drive or not is not restricted by taxation, its application is enforced by penalties - but the choice to drive is still there, without penalty. Your nutrition example isn't applicable to this discussion, because its force is knowledge, not a restriction of choices.
You speak of a "line" between acceptable, ('for the good of all')... and what? Where is your line? If you are Ok with soda taxes, then how about tanning lotion taxes? How about an Obamacare-type tax if you don't join a health and fitness club? Where is your line?
If you feel the need to 'help' people be healthier via government mandate, how do you feel about it telling you how much salt you can put on your food. (check out New York's efforts at controlling table salt consumption)
I am not wise enough, nor judicial enough, to draw a fine line, so I draw a broad line. Suggestion and persuasion are on my side, governmental force appears to be on your side.
GA
I consider myself of the progressive left
But, I do have a problem with nanny government and that penalizing people in this way goes too far. I would not want to presume that solely the habits of the poor are the source of obesity in this society. Sin taxes are unreasonable, I would rather focus on just getting the fat cats to pay their fair share.
Mandatory seat belt laws is as far as it goes for me along this line, as deaths and the associated greater insurance costs to society result when drivers do not buckle up. The correlations between no seat belts and greater deaths are clear and have been established for some time. Also, operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is a privilege not a right. I can't make the same connections with how much fat or sugar products are in the food that any one consumes.The data on the effectiveness of the soda tax appear to be pretty conclusive. That said, I'm a supporter of marijuana legalization. One would assume that if I think a person can make an informed decision about whether smoking weed is good for them they ought to be able to make the same decision on soda. So again, I'm torn.
It's not forced compliance. The government is not preventing people from buying it. They are merely penalizing through taxation for behavior that is detrimental to the health of society. The tax on cigarettes is probably most analogous.
Well, yes. It's in the legislation, at least where I live. The revenue collected from the tax goes directly the health programs. These are not federal programs. All that I know of are local.
di Blasio is a walking, talking Political Statement.
Pedogate: President of NY Young Democrats/de Blasio staffer arrested for child porn as young as 6 months old.
Posted on May 27, 2017
* https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2017/0 … -as-6-mos/
Sick!Agreed, sick! What is your point? That de Blasio has some culpability? And what about Trump's pussy grabbing? What about his walking in on young pageant participants while they were naked? Is there any equivalency or are just the actions of Democrats concerning to you?
The story on the Trump play is more bs. Did you just watch Fox News and regurgitate exactly what they said word-for-word?
Do you know what Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is about?
Were you as outraged when the same play was performed using Obama's likeness in place of Caesar?
Why was it news for Fox when it's Trump's likeness but not when it's Obama's.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0Fake News ;...... what news ?
A few years back in a business management position I attended several management seminars , On thing that I took away from these meetings was that the organizers preached the eventual disappearance of "common sense " among employees and employer relations , i remember thinking then "What ? No way ", but here it is the empty nest of common sense .
Yes Virginia ! Today , politically speaking , people have to be told what to believe , but also , how to think or so the media would have you and your offspring believe . Me , I can handle it all myself , your kids are already lost by the way , they are handed a prepackaged mindset all the way from pre-school to college and everytime you hear them speak - tell me you don't recognise that "one speak "mindset.
Independent thought ; a thing of the past .The programming is meant to brainwash. It works so well, but it doesn't work at all when you are aware of it, because then you can see through it...(most of the time).
I believe the government needs to defund the liberal arts. People should demand it, taxpayers should not be supporting vile hatred from a death cult.
"Somebody neither the left or the right is super happy about, but somebody who respects both sides and finds a way to get people to compromise." We had somebody and she won by 3 million votes.
And thanks to the progressives who have commented here. You've expressed your views concisely and without calling anybody a snide name."......won by 3 million popular votes ........" And lost 33 states ,....... to bad she wasn't running for Mayor of NYC or the one you live in .
Newsflash ; Hilary lost .I think what I've learned here is that liberals think Hillary was a centrist and Tea partiers think Trump is a centrist. Man, we can't even agree on what a centrist looks like.
And oddly, I have to agree with ahorseback. Hillary lost. I think she would have lost no matter what because she ran a bad campaign that had few interesting ideas and was mostly just anti-Trump. The DNC needs to be gutted of its morons and rebuilt from the ground up.I'm amazed that Hilary continues in her "election loss fault "campaign tour and I think , How can she keep blaming all but herself ? I would have to argue the centrist thing though , she's a chameleon speaking to the identifying crowd .
I think that IS her career now, the "election loss fault" campaign tour!
Hillary (one L or two?) a Centrist? A middle of the road kind of gal? Kathleen, seriously?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Trump IS a centrist , always has been or an avowed democrat . Calling Trump right wing is a no burger.
Yep. I'm so glad that he is in and Hillary is out.....on her Tour.
While Trump has shown great Promise in many areas, he still has far to go. I am pulling for him and for a Greater America.Trump is most definitely NOT a centrist. Wherever he may have been in his past, he's very far right now and every single policy he's put forth so far is very far right. Every person he's hired is far right.
What exactly does a centrist look like in your world?
Hillary is far closer to a centrist than Trump. She's liberal in terms of social policy, but her business policy is right of center. She's generally a corporatist. And her military policy was also fairly right of center. She was certainly no pacifist, which would be left.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
If Trump did fire Mueller . who could blame him , there have been O items of legitimate obstructionist charges that Trump is in any way guilty of . Liberals simply hate Trump and yet it's not even so much that as the fact that they can't get over the election results !
Essentially , the moron --media keeps handing the left stones and bricks to throw at the Trump limo and they keep throwing them , guess what , Trump loves that . Keep it up !
Related Discussions
- 19
Trump's Tweet on Fake News.
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
Well up until this time, I had a hard time trying to differentiate fake news from real news. However now that Trump has posted this tweet, at least I have something to go by. O.K. so Fake News, according to Trump's tweet are "New York Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN. They are...
- 56
President Trump Calls for an Investigation of the "Fake" News Media
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
Is this something Congress should do?And what exactly is fake news? While President Trump may complain about "fake" news, he continues to make demonstrably false statements at a rate that far exceeds anything in the "fake" news. In fact, those false statement are all tallied...
- 180
Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
How can Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize when his is constantly working at dividing his own country? Ever since he was elected president, he has constantly called the Main Stream Media the "Fake News." No modern American president has publicly spoken this way about the press....
- 67
Trump gave a speech in Iowa tonight. Why was Fox News the ONLY channel to carry
by Greg Schweizer 7 years ago
Trump gave a speech in Iowa tonight. Why was Fox News the ONLY channel to carry the speech?
- 42
Media keeps losing to Pres Trump but won't retreat from Fake News?
by ahorseback 7 years ago
Fake is fake and everybody knows the difference except the mainstream media .Any takers ? Even liberals must recognize the futility of the news media maintaining the plague of falsehoods.
- 47
Fox News is NOT a news channel
by promisem 8 years ago
I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand Fox News. It has a successful business strategy of appealing to people's conservative biases, which is why a majority of viewers are conservative Republicans.Fox is not a news channel that seeks the truth. It provides reporting and commentary...