‘You can’t teach anybody anything because you have nothing of value that anyone should want to know.’
True and false. On an objective scale true, but in a more limited context, some of the things our resident liberal teaches us are actually quite interesting.
First, he taught us—or tried to teach us—that the press is neutral. Since he throws hissy fits whenever he’s not quoted exactly, here it is:
‘I’m saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated. That’s not to say there can’t be counter evidence.’
Now where else on FR could you possibly learn that the press is evenhandedly ‘versus all’? I bet you thought the press was pro-liberal and anti-conservative. Our resident liberal ‘teaches’ us otherwise.
[Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3211679/posts?page=312#309]
Another really fascinating thing he taught us was that Obama’s executive amnesty is a good thing. I asked our resident liberal for an example of Obama treating US citizens more favorably than he treats illegals, foreigners & terrorists, and the Obot cited executive amnesty. [A portion of it is said to favor citizens. More on that immediately below.] Now where else on FR could you ‘learn’ that executive amnesty is a good thing? Nowhere, that’s where. [Link below]
Here is the most interesting thing of all. Namely, that within executive amnesty, Obama shows preference to US citizens over illegals. Tell me you can top that for a learning experience? Nobody can.
Here are the details:
‘But even within Obama’s recent executive order, illegals who have criminal records still get deported where citizens in such a position do not. So that is one counter-example where illegals get treated less favorably. So your question is answered.’ [Note: it was a ‘memorandum,’ not an EO. Obama lied, and Obots believed him.]
Now that right there is prime teachable stuff. Who knew Obama had the option of deporting legal American citizens just because they have a record? Of course, our resident liberal is coy about exactly where Obama would deport such US citizens to. It’s kind of a ‘That’s for me to know and you to find out’ deal. But the fascinating part is simply the concept of deporting US citizens with criminal records. You see, Obama would be doing that right now, except that he likes US citizens more than he likes illegal aliens. So he magnanimously allows US citizens with criminal records to remain in the country. That Obama, he just loves him some American citizens—what a guy!
An especially interesting aspect of this last point pertains to ‘criminal Americans’ of color. I.e.: if Obama ever decides he’s tired of discriminating against non-Americans, and he opts to treat everyone equally [never put it past him; he already said US citizens have no right to say who can or can’t live in their own country] to what country will he deport our citizens of color? Would it be racist to deport African Americans to Africa? Or would it be racist *not* to deport African Americans to Africa? [Bear in mind, please, that I am personally opposed to deporting any and all US citizens; I am merely exploring the intriguing insights of our resident moonba...oops, I meant ‘liberal.’]
Perhaps sometime our trouble-making disrupter will flesh out his comments. Meanwhile I ask you, where else on FR could you learn that Obama has the option of deporting legal US citizens?
Nowhere, that’s where.
[Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3231278/posts?page=51#81]
‘I’m saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated. That’s not to say there can’t be counter evidence.’
Now where else on FR could you possibly learn that the press is evenhandedly ‘versus all’? I bet you thought the press was pro-liberal and anti-conservative. Our resident liberal ‘teaches’ us otherwise.
What he says is a non-sequitur. Raising stakes does not necessarily produce evidence. Occupying the office is not "proof." A majority often just means that all the fools were on the same side. Oh, and no conservative believes the press is objective. Liberal Democrat Union Members from New York City are not objective. They are extremely biased towards their party.
Perhaps sometime our trouble-making disrupter will flesh out his comments. Meanwhile I ask you, where else on FR could you learn that Obama has the option of deporting legal US citizens?
And this is just another reason why no one should waste their time reading his drivel. He really should have been zotted a long time ago.