Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
816
-
141
-
94
-
66
-
64
-
49
-
25
-
21
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@mikean1123 Nice try, kid, the 3 days after the virus being identified, China has been ban from travel. That's a major step, I recalled you morons calling that ban "racist", despite multiple countries did not ban people from China, and now are facing consequences.
South Korea, Italy.
Don't be a moron.
The virus first being identified in December of 2019, nobody knows that it is back then, so unless you're an idiot who proposed to shut down society right away, I suggest you be glad that Trump did what he did.
Want to check out Japan? Italy? Germany?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, nobody attack him because they're dumber than him. But I'm not, so I'm going to spell it for you.
Yang is a hypocrite, his organization only deemed 9% of it's applicants to be qualified, yet he wants to give money to 100% of the population, he waste people's money because it's not his.
Do the math, kid, Yang does fake math, he ignores variables that are real but unfortunately they debunked his policy.
VAT is paid by consumers, actually go to a country with it for once, so his plan is to raise taxes on people more than necessary, it's called stealing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sewfantastic7257 Okay, moron, maybe you're really dumb or your highly delusional. Traffic accidents happens everyday, what are you gonna do? Just because they happen, you'll remove all traffic regulation, is that your definition to solution, idiot. The Wall isn't there to stop killing, it's there to minimize the probability that some American Citizens get killed by a criminal who come to this country illegally, or maybe some American families who will be destroyed when those illegal immigrants moving drugs along their way. Use your brain, the only reason that you're alive is due to the fact that we have organizations, departments dedicated to the purpose of minimizing tragic events. They still happens, but anyone who isn't dead, should think really hard about why are you not dead. Go back to school, use your brain. Just because war still happens, doesn't mean the military is useless. Think a bit. Pathetic!
3
-
@austineskola3165 Go back to school, pal, don't believe fake math. He wants to raise taxes on you. Don't believe lies, VAT is paid by consumers, not companies, go to a country which applies them, don't ignore the truth because you're lazy.
Yang is a hypocrite, his organization reject 89% of the population, said they're unqualified for higher training, but he wants to give money to everybody? Don't steal from people, pal, learn real math.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@CezDmX Kid, let met give you a piece of knowledge about economic and security. If you double the national debt to regain what you've lost, you basically did nothing except waiting it out. There's no much more to go lower, so you go up, slowly and poorly. Ratio, kid. Learn some math.
Security, counter terrorist action can be made and will be made by the US military forces on the base in the area, doesn't require military personnel in the area to fight. You know, smart people know how to use technology, you should try it, too.
Another piece of advice, kid. If you don't know anything, don't pretend that you do. It's just pathetic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Temmie No, pal, I pointed out why he is troll, therefore my conclusion is that he is a troll, it's called reasoning and conclusion, you're the one who is lost, Clear? Don't be desperate, think for yourself instead of typing nonsense propaganda, need a definition for that, too? It means you're typing lies to advocate for something, propaganda. Clear?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gonzalochocanoart That's what you think, sorry, go overseas and ask people, I did, they loved Trump, especially Asian countries now that he's taking care of China cheating.
Obama took unemployment from disaster to normal, that's not how math works, the lower the unemployment gets, the harder it is to lower, study.
Kid, Uber driving isn't counted as a job, , and if it's counted then it's not enough for people to pay any taxes. So they're still getting government's benefits.
Check your measurements, life expectancy lowers as obesity increases, so much for your "no body shaming" nonsense. Don't make up fake stats, kid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@maninthemiddle55 Totally unnecessary? You think Osama Bin Laden was killed only by one operation? You think that getting rid of Al Queda means we're not threatened by terrorist? Go to Aleppo, kid, to see what kind fo things used to happen there, and ask yourself what kind of things the people who did the things at Aleppo wouldn't dare to do with the US? The movie got one thing right, we won't apologize for keeping your friends and family safe. North Korea is scary? Lool back at Iraq. ISIS is an embodiment of radical Islamic terrorism, you idiot think that terrorism lies in organizations, pathetic, we smarter people know that that terrorism lies in the terrorist beliefs, remove ISIS, one day they'll formed a new one with a new name. Before ISIS, it's Al Queda, after ISIS, something else. Like how we understand a war with idiocy lies in your idiot mind and not just idiotic representatives, war against Terror is against the idea of terrorism, not an organization. Too difficult for you to understand? Cheney knew the same thing, you people can't comprehend the idea of it "the people found it confusing, they want a country". Use your brain
2
-
@maninthemiddle55 Okay, pal. You're not providing any evidence of the war's purpose. You claim it however you want it to be, we didn't start a war just to give company oil field, idiot. The companies want the oil field once we're done with the war. Pathetic.
The war against Iraq is the war against Terror, you're mistaken the idea of terrorism and terrorist organization. The war against terror is against terrorism, not against terrorist organizations, the organizations are a part of terrorism. "They haven't been", idiot, not that they won't, not that they can't, they just haven't been. Iraq is a sanctuary for terrorism, that unstable part, in any form could aid massive terrorist organizations any time, there is no restriction on them, no intervention possible, no oversight, no democracy, endless resources. Use your brain, just because the fire hasn't caught on to the haystack doesn't mean we're gonna let a haystack next to the fire, that's total nonsense.
You believe in what you believe alone, not based on any facts, any evidence, any reasoning. Your plan of counter terrorism by "teaching", you can't teach at places where you don't have control. Why do you think they need to ivade Iraq if they can teach Iraqi's children? Use your brain.
Your thesis, uncorroborated, based on all assumption , is trash thesis, worthless. Clear, go back to school, pal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnkillinger453 You're not even reading, kid. You don't have the right to tear down a war memorial, honoring soldiers just because they're shaped like a cross. It's a memorial honoring soldiers dying on the battlefield for their beliefs. Not a religious memorial, it's not a church. If you take the memorial down then you should abolish any grave that is shaped like a cross, right? Including thousands of those in Arlington? Learn to think, kid. And even if that is a religious memorial, there's no such law requires you not to have it.
Congress shall make no law putting a religion over the other, you need to proof that this memorial is built for the purpose of putting one religion over the other, and not just to honoring the religion of ones who died.
You're way over your head trying to argue this, so I suggest you go back to school.
Freedom of religion. It's one thing to build a memorial, it's an entirely different thing to remove one. This memorial has been built by previous administration, and you'll need substantial reason to remove it. Otherwise, Arlington, White House, Monument of Liberty can all be disposed by the current administration.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
David Williams You have no argument against any fact anybody have given out, so are you a troll or a moron? Either way, go back to school, kid.
Here, UBI is stealing money, you're giving money to people who don't work by taking the majority from the people who do work, and your excuse for that is because their jobs are being replaced. Now that is really stupid, when somebody is out of work, you find them new job, not give them free money, assistance might come, but need to be returned, otherwise it is a handout. Because if they don't have jobs, they don't pay tax, the money they're given is not like stockholders privilege, they haven't put any money in for equity.
If people don't create values anymore, taxing tech companies will not make any money, they don't have jobs, they can't pay, they can't buy stuff, tech companies will fail, aka, your taxing will not work.
Your big idea is to change them from workers in storage housing into what? Nurses? Painters? Artists? All of the above requires a market, which the people worked in storage housing used to be and now if the market is gone, or severely gone undersized, those jobs value will also decrease.
Now I get your intention, it's good, you need to figure out a way to adapt to change, the unfortunate thing is that your way is stupid.
If giving people free money can make more money, they would've done it already, but wait, nobody does it, even socialist countries, because the presumption of it is anti-science. Go back to school, kid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Retrostarscream Listen, pal. I just debunked your myth. You can't attempt to obstruct, obstruct is an act that happens immediately, just like you can attempt to commit perjury, study, pal. Stop typing propaganda nonsense.
And immunity goes off after the term but there's no case anymore, what case? They just declared no crime, Mueller report declared him innocent, Mueller gave up his title by not giving out a conclusion, therefore Barr made that conclusion, it's the law. Study. Mueller's job wasn't to charge people, it was to find out crimes, he didn't find any. You found it, you say that there is, you don't, you say that there isn't. No middle ground nonsense, it's called distracting.
And your entire previous comment, I debunked them too, pal. Read, the policy doesn't matter, you're hired for doing a report, which includes a conclusion, Ken Starr, Mueller didn't finish, he gave up and therefore the roles go to Barr, who declared no obstruction, no collusion as in lack of evidence, and if you're not guilty then you're innocent.
If you're gonna keep typing a myth and pretend that it's a fact, i suggest staying quiet would be the better option.
2
-
@Retrostarscream Hey listen, kid. I know you're desperate but just don't be a troll here. I just refuted all your sources as in pointed how you're lying about the source. Those aren't sources, those are you lying of what the source actually means.
1. According to the McGhan story and Donald Trump telling him to deny the story of The President ordering to terminate the Special Counsel. This entire interpretation of Mueller and yours is based on a slippery slope definition. The definition of obstruction.
Obstruction means perverting of justice, and you need to prove that the action of telling McGhan to tell a version of the story that McGhan doesn't feel comfortable with, or even that McGhan interpreted in an entire different way, therefore leading to misunderstanding of what the meeting is about and what he was told to do, is not related to "justice" at any point. So if The President told his son to say that they served Polish Vodka instead of Russian Vodka would also be obstruction?
It relates to the Russian connection, think a bit pal. The detail of whether The President tell Don McGhan to say this or that, doesn't matter at all, because what he say, is not related in anyway to the investigation or any of the charges.
That is my analysis to refute that passage of The Mueller Report, you know what this is called, it's called thinking, not just quoting false information like you.
2. That second paragraph you quoted about prosecuting somebody after office. That's just total irrelevant, Mueller there just typed a standard line, announcing himself to have executed his job properly, which is his opinion alone.
That statement about " conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available", what, SO IF THE PRESIDENT HAS IMMUNITY AFTER OFFICE THEN THEY WILL NOT CONDUCT A THOROUGH FACTUAL INVESTIGATION? OR IS IT THEY WON'T PRESERVE ANY EVIDENCE?
President has no immunity after office, but in order to charge them for the same crime as the crime that has already been investigated, they need to have declared him guilty in the report, Mueller didn't do that, Ken Starr did that, and in that case, if Clinton wasn't acquitted by the Senate, he would've been prosecuted after office. In Trump case, you can't charge him, you have nothing, what crime? You have an example up for suggestion and no conclusion, except for the conclusion that had to be made because of Mueller's incompetency, by Barr saying that he's not guilty. So yeah, they can preserve evidence, there's nothing to charge him. Mueller's words in that paragraph is just basic procedures.
3. Your thesis of Mueller Press Conference, THAT IS HIS FALSE OPINION. KEN STARR DID IT WITH CLINTON, IF MUELLER DIDN'T COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY, HE FAILED TO DO HIS JOBS.
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW HE FEEL, THE FACT IS THERE, MUELLER GAVE UP HIS CREDIBILITY WHEN HE REFUSED TO FINISH THE WORK.
It doesn't matter how Mr. Incompetent feels , if he can't conclude guilty, by his conscious calling or moral calling or whatever, by the Constitution of the United States, he declared that Donald Trump is innocent, as in how every citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Clear? Pal, stop posting lies that you made up.
4. "The constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing". Again, this is his opinion alone, The Constitution require a different process to remove the President from office, but to ACCUSE, NO IT DOESN'T NEED A DIFFERENT PROCESS TO ACCUSE. DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE FEELS IF THIS IS FAIR OR NOT, THAT IS THE LAW AND THERE'S NO SUCH LAW BAN HIM FROM MAKING A CONCLUSION, HE GAVE UP.
So yeah, pal, stop posting lies that you made up.
Finally, if you already know that your argument are dumb as hell and you're still typing it because you're trolling, I suggest going back to school, small time troll.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Strange Quark No, those aren't facts, kid, those are your assumption, here's why:
You can't prove the reason why he didn't show the footage, my conclusion after watching the taped version is that the "interview" was a footage of Tucker trying to debate a clown, idiot Dutchman failed to give any argument, any counter argument, he insult the channel and the anchor. So it's a worthless interview full of lies, no reason to show it.
Again, you can't prove that this is an excuse, because you can't prove that he did anything wrong.
So yeah, your argument crumbled, if you want to learn how to give out better arguments, I suggest going to college.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ProperSlic No, why don't you look at the actual facts, idiot. We don't give people house they can't afford, they claim that they can pay and afford those houses, yet they lied. That's what most people do, incapable of doing anything useful despite of the best conditions. You have a house, no more rent, what do you have to worry about? Yet you can't pay the mortgage?
Your idea is giving people free money? Just because those aren't loans doesn't mean it's not a stupid thing giving free things to the people that will never repay it.
It wasn't inflation that led to the housing bubble, learn actual economics, it was stupidity of the bank to put trust in human's competency. Guess what, most people are incompetent, seeing how you people are asking for free money.
Why don't you go get a job, that's the right way to earn money. Pathetic! Maybe go get a degree at Economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@netgiant2592 Yeah, nice try, kid, none of those research are even finished yet you claim those are results. Pathetic!
You see Finland, that's a failing, Canada, spending money for nothing. Stop making up lies.
12K is the poverty line, people won't do nothing, THEY'LL JUST BE DOING LESS THAN WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING, learn some math. If you can't prosper in America, it's likely that you're incapable of doing it, stop drinking, buy a book, study!
The whole flaw in Yang policy is that it steals from people and then ignore how the money stolen gonna be spent. You hope they will spend it well?
Yeah, use that hope in business, we'll see how you bankrupt.
Go back to school, idiot.
1
-
Oh, the failed dude. Pretty pathetic guy, guessed that his campaign based on homosexuality card didn't pander out to the voters.
Pretty dumb guy, no solid plan, and of course, a puppet for the left.
They accuse Trump of something with no proof, he denies it, dummy lefty keep pretending as if it's a fact. What an idiot. At Least Trump Republican is actually a Republican, small government, John McCain before he was a Republican, he was a politician, pretty much like dummy Pete. Bunch of hypocrites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Quoting from Biden document.
"Federal funding to create a civilian corps of unarmed first responders such as social workers, EMTs, and trained mental health professionals, who can handle nonviolent emergencies including order maintenance violations, mental health emergencies, and low-level conflicts outside the criminal justice system, freeing police officers to concentrate on the most serious crimes. Fund initiatives to partner mental health professionals, substance use disorder experts, social workers, and disability advocates with police departments to respond to calls with police officers to better de-escalate interactions with citizens and when appropriate, to divert individuals to the social services they need."
The nonsense here is in the "creation of a civilian corps of unarmed first responders".
This is defunding or abolishing the police because it replaces the police with these "first responders".
This is a crazy idea because the police isn't there to treat the substance abuse person, the police is there to protect the people whom the substance abuse person is harming.
The idea of replacing policemen, who protects civilians, with the people focused on treating the insane people, is defunding the police.
You can call a social workers, but oh, no, the substance user has a gun, what will they do? Say pretty please?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wayneenterprise463 Nice lies, kid, no wars have been going on ever since 2011, stop making up wars, The entire military budget now is 700 billions, mostly to secure areas, you want to disband military? It will lead to WW3. Then your UBI won't mean much, think!
Lobbying isn't measured in trillions, learn some math.
Tax breaks create jobs and growth, which actually filled the tax, successful with Reagan and now Trump. And tax breaks are too all American people, don't be angry just because you don't pay taxes, therefore gained no benefits.
How about getting actual facts and stop typing lies? Idiot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cynna1065 Fine, do you have any prove that those people didn't vote? Where's your prove for that?
The source? Well, images of illegal immigrants fleeing from law enforcement, the existence of ICE itself is the evidence showing that those illegal aliens are committing crimes and do not wish to stop. Therefore they have the motive not supporting the people who are capturing them. And that's the motive. Where's the proof for that? Call the FBI and ask them how they narrow down their suspects.
This is a theory, very likable theory based on how nobody can disprove it, but half of the country is disallowing proving it.
You're just ignoring facts because you're short sighted, pal.
It's not my instinct, it's logic. Learn it. Kid.
You can't disprove it. We're prohibited from proving it due to the corrupt nature of the Democrats, disallowing voting registration requirements.
There, those are the facts. If you can't see, you're very blind.
You can't show and prove something that is hidden, kid. You know what it's called
Investigating, thinking, logic.
It's also how democracy was formed. Ideology that has never been seen before put into application due to logic.
There. Your version of show and prove is not much more than a show and tell of a third grader, can only be applied with very trivial stuff. If you want to argue, pal, I suggest learn how to think by using what you see, not just reciting what you see however it was given to you.
Pathetic!
1
-
@Cynna1065
Okay, kid, you're just embarrassing yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about concerning law school, Columbia Law here, want to meet?
You're just ignoring information and demand proof before anything can be proven, that kind of thinking would lead you to believe that the moon landing is fake, and something mysterious happened in Roswell, here's a piece of advice, if something can't be prove or disprove, we, by law are required to act based on the presumption of innocence, but it doesn't mean that information can be ignored just because they're not directly linked, idiot.
That's how thesis, theory is formed. You want to ignore that, fine. Keep living in that bubble if you want to. I did show what I had found, kid. It's a case, which has really obvious evidence, number of illegal immigrants, by definition is criminal, millions of them, will be prosecuted and arrested if the policies against illegal immigrants are passed. So if you don't consider that as valid motive, then maybe you should ignore witness protection, because there is no proof whatsoever that the criminals will "harm" the witness, right? Where did you go to school, Ixtapa?
There are 2 kinds of prove, idiot. Direct proof, and indirect proof, the direct proof is used to convict someone, but the indirect ones are used, when the direct ones aren't available, they're used to make a case against something, such as criminal records, motive. That's how people got investigated before being arrested. You're seeing the situation as whether something is absolutely proved or it is false, which is ignorant. Clear?
Disproving or proving something in an absolute way requires hard evidence. Which are usually not available because most criminals aren't that stupid, they're smarter than you. But we're also more clever, we have the right to suspect somebody of something, as in how the police department have the right to suspect anybody and listed anybody related into the investigation if they don't have solid alibi, and even when they have alibi, the police still have the right to suspect that something happened, because out of all possible situation, there are more situation that something happened indirectly than nothing happened at all. So given the information above, it's reasonable to assume that something is happening and demand an investigation into the matter, but we can't. Those illegal immigrants are being protected by the same senators, representative that they support and committed crimes to vote for, information, kid, learn it. Where would people learn that? Law school, kid, they even taught that in college, maybe you should go there.
There isn't proof, because if there was proof, the majority of Democrats would be impeached, like I said, it's not absolute, we're in the process of investigating.
You're really delusional, aren't you. Copying words without even thinking what they meant. The proving and disproving something is only required in the court of law, why? Because it's in that court of law that the government will use their tremendous power to exercise those judgement, and that requires a relatively correct judgement. But when discussing about a case that isn't in a court of law, for example, like this one. You need to give information to make a case. Otherwise we can't catch any murderer if they're not caught at the scene, why? Because you can't suspect anyone because there are no hard proof. So, learn to read, and then learn to think about what you read. Because you're just embarrassing yourself
An old Chinese saying for you: If you know, say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how you know. You don't know anything, kid. Go back to school, pathetic!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rumi9005 It has always been a national emergency, people just have been ignoring it. It happened under Obama, Bush, before that, you didn't care. Now we do care, and we voted for this President, not the public vote, there's a reason why we don't use that. Learn it.
You should ask Lincoln why slavery was a bad thing, Washington, Adams, Jefferson all used the system. Your arguement is as flawed as it's dumb. Think a bit.
1
-
1
-
@jrich745 Where, give link, quote can be made up, kid. Give a source, official release? Anywhere? Go ahead, give a link. It's not a quote unless there are proof of that "quote". Where? Give one.
You don't believe, not evidence, you could be stupid, who knows. No, Trump Tower has wall, like any other working building and houses, it protects the people inside, that's why we're going to build one. Learn to think. Pathetic.
1
-
@jrich745 Yeah, I have a better one for you. The official release statement of the DEA, read it. It's long but not that long, mostly graphics.They actually discussed the matter in that article with full context. Let me break your illusion,
First: Illegal border crossing isn't down, the article only mentioned illegal crossing that were apprehended, and furthermore, what do you think's gonna happen when they already gotten into the country? Did the people who got in just go out and re enter every year? Do the math, they stay, so of course it's gonna go down, but it keeps adding up
Second: People who come into the country don't aim at border counties, idiot. You don't go to the border to deal drugs, or find jobs. You go for the center, or close the center, and again, "counties". Not state, counties. Think a bit
Third, most undocumented immigrants don't sneak through the border, well they're the civilized one who could get a visa. The dangerous ones, (caravan) didn't, and furthermore is that this statement has no source.
Fourth, fine, not terrorist, people with serious criminal history, intention of violence, criminals. They're slightly better, but if you think that you should let a criminal into your own home just because terrorist have been stopped from entering then you're crazy.
Fifth, no caravan are sneaking, they're rushing the border, want to look? There are footage, asylum seekers don't attack border patrol agents and scale the barrier. Those actions, if happened domestically are called thieves. Study.
Sixth, drugs entering, only known drugs, apprehended drugs are hidden. Why do you think they know that they're hidden? Think a bit, if the drugs coming in are caught at checkpoint, why would they go through the checkpoint, idiot.
Seventh, Conservative political figures? Who? One representative? All politicians in the past agreed on the barrier? Need some footage?
Eighth, 354 miles already have fence? So what, the border is way much more than that, do you keep your wall holed because 30% is already filled?
Ninth, polls conducted by whom? Credibility? There was an actual election and Donald Trump was voted as the President, that's more accurate than any poll. And if you're gonna pull the "public vote", there's a reason we don't use that. Montana does contribute to the country, not just California.
The entire article is a bunch of nonsense. I just did you a favor of pointing it out.' Read carefully and choose a better agenda next time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jrich745 "Drive under it". You don't think at all, do you. We have air control, coast guard, even sensors under ground. But what we don't have is a physical barrier. The more you type, the more desperate you get, if you can't give out actual reasons, stop lying to people, it's despicable. We're at the end of the 18th day, we addressed the nation, saying that he won't cave in.
Let me give you a hint, that decision isn't made by him alone, it's made by his staff, consists of way smarter people than you. Don't be desperate.
1
-
@russk8091 A piece of advice kid, if you can't give out any arguement, typing long won't make you less pathetic. People do read, unlike you.
You have better solution, go ahead. The most simplistic thing exist for a reason. If you think that having walls won't help, answer this question, do your house have a wall?
An old saying that is also medieval but very true. If you do know, say that you do know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how people tell whether you know. You don't know anything, go back to school because you're just embarasseing yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@machioveli2688 He said there's quid pro quo in any sort of aid or deal in the world, the point is that quid pro quo here is on behalf of a country, not an individual.
Go study some philosophy, that's basic for morons like you to understand, kid. Biden offered aid to fire one specific prosecutor and he does that to one person directly, to benefit himself.
Trump withheld aid until the country can fix the problem with corruption.
Nice try, kid, go back to school, in Biden case, you can't prove that the prosecutor is corrupted, he's not even rich. But with Trump's case, Ukraine is fairly corrupted. Biden admitted it on tape.
Stop living in a bubble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dilbertresvicksonburg4273 Pal, you can't ignore people who already destroyed your logic before you type your reply. It's just embarrassing, what you mentioned, is totally false and I pointed out why, if you don't bother to read the full reply, I suggest go elsewhere to troll. It's not a threat when stating that somebody has the full right to self defense , by any means, (shooting) when under threat (being physically assaulted), so yeah, your argument crumbled, you can't ignore that and pretend to be correct, you're wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Next they'll question the nature of the country. And really , I would like that, it's then when the country fell into total chaos that we, the people of logic, freedom and justice will rise to bring down that nonsensical terrorist group. The left, it's no longer a political agenda, anymore. It's even more dangerous than ISIS. Ignoring facts, truth, logic, hating the American Government, that is the real American Taliban.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chr900 Yeah, pal, nice distraction. When you don't know anything, just list a bunch of names so that your opposition have to do the research for you, right?
Certain, link, just one report saying the "catastrophy" in 10 years, it's consequences, directly, where? Each of those organization has dozens of reports, pick one, give a link, which part of that report that justify your claim. You can't use name dropping with people who are smarter than you.
Give out a certain link to just one report, you claim to have many, just give out one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
That professor is delusional, and this is a real threats. Only delusional people demand things that they have no idea how to do.
Abolish prisons to transform the people, how? Where's the money? How are we gonna transform them ? Rehabilitation center for the riches, celebrities are expensive and only worked for 50% of the patients, so what kind of plans do you have. His answer: Nothing. We can't even have better education system because the students are getting way too stupid, and we're gonna pop up some magic rehabilitation center?
Managing the Immigrants who come in? How, by limiting the amount of immigrants enough to mange, as you know, the number of people are countless and the human resource to mange is limited, the limits we set are called borders. So their arguments for abolishing borders is insane. We are opening our doors, just that the door isn't big enough for all people, and it needs to be that way to that it can be a door and not a completely open side of the house.
And that statement about letting people in will bring them together. THE PEOPLE WHO CAME HERE A CENTURY AGO ARE THE ONES WHO BUILT THE COUNTRY, GUESS WHAT? THERE ARE NO MORE SPACE FOR THAT KIND OF MIGRATION, WHY? IT'S BECAUSE THE COUNTRY RESOURCES ARE LIMITED, AND WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN PEOPLE FIRST.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's uncleared, idiot, because the recruitment process is about evaluating people. There isn't any formula, any method, any exact way to do that. 20% number, 80% assumption. How to distinguish between 2 qualified individual, same score, same background, different interests? Can you? What's the criteria, Harvard's criteria is excellence, what is excellence? Don't speak nonsensical crap if you don't understand a thing. People hire their workers based on likability all the time, how do you think they choose people if there are limited slots? Think a bit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump is a man of facts and reasons, it's just that he doesn't know how to translate those things into words. It's understandable, he's a businessman, discussing in closed rooms, strong language. But whoever suggested this interview should be fired immediately, if that person not a spy then he or she must be stupid with media relationship.
That interview, even though is a despicable attempt to lower the President's credibility, worked. Trump's answers weren't clear, because he got flustered with framing questions all over. Those lying reporters need to be confronted, if this were Putin, he would've destroyed them like he did with Megyn Kelly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yolo Swaggins Well, first off, they're still illegal, their presence is the crime itself.
The commit violent crime at a lower rate, yes, they are only accountable for less then 5% of the population, but they're still illegal.
If they have no rights to be here, any actions of supporting them being here is against the law, and therefore any consequences that follows such actions are totally preventable.
Morally, the city should be sued if it protects illegal people that commits illegal acts. Every American citizens is considered innocent before committing a crime, therefore a city is not accountable for that innocent citizen. But if a city intentionally assists the presence of illegal aliens, aka, criminal, yes, they should be accountable for the actions of that aliens.
If a prisoner escape from prison and kills someone, the accountability goes to the warden and security at that prison. Think a bit, pal.
They don't commit serious crimes as much but they being here violates the core principle of America. All men are created equal, illegal immigrants put themselves up before legal immigrants.
Think a bit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay, point out the lies, morons, which lies, which part of their reporting isn't true? Don't make up things and then pretend they're facts.
Murdoch doesn't run Fox News, moron, he owns Fox News, a billionaire has a lot more things to do than participating in a branch of a sub company that he resign from. You're linking irrelevant facts and assumptions using more assumptions, which isn't deduction. It's delusional. If your theory is true than the reporting of Fox News need to be constant with Murdoch's agenda, which is total lie, because FOX News is never constant, the strategy of the cable just changed earlier this year, if you had watched them, you would know.
Your hypothesis would be correct with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, why, because those channels aren't doing news reporting. But not Fox News, want to point out their "lies", go ahead, you can't. at least not since their latest change in strategy earlier this year on reporting facts and logic.
And a sound advice, don't take Quora Q&As as proof, they're not. Like I said, go back to school.
1
-
Joker 23
Okay, now the Joker is using Murphy's law, kid, seriously, go back to school. By your assumption that because something can happen, it happens, then we're all puppets run by giants. Like I said, go back to school, bigger people than him can't even run this country. Gates, Buffet, the Kochs, Soros, all their attempt to make left wing politics a majority can't even win the 2016 election. Like I said, maybe Murdoch want to own the people, but as long as he's doing it using facts, reasons and the truth, we the people accept that. We didn't accept propaganda nonsense back with the Tea Party, like how we don't accept radical mob ruling right now with CNN, MSNBC, CBS.
Ask yourself the question why those people like Murdoch needs this kind of media, why? Because they know that they do not have control over the public, they're trying to, but we all know that it's not gonna work. Murdoch, Soros, Gates, Buffet, Bloomberg, Kochs, despite all their efforts, can not control the country.
And finally, idiot, about proving Fox News is telling the truth, that's not how it works. We assume by default that they're telling the truth, presumption of innocent, that they're doing their jobs, their moral obligations as news organizations is to do factually accurate reporting, you claim otherwise, you need to prove that they're lying. We do it all the time with CNN, MSNBC, CBS. So like I said, if you can't point out anything, accept that your belief is false.
An old Chinese saying for you, "if you know, say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how you know".
I know that you don't know a thing and I just said it.
1
-
Oh, and thinking that something is biased or not isn't thinking at all, it's guessing. You need to point out the bias in the reporting for it to deemed as biased, clear moron? Like I said, it doesn't matter what you think about something, it matters how that thing actually is. Try point out the bias, I dare you, like I said, you can't. And even if you could, which I strongly know that you can't, then I still know that this, Fox News, is the least biased channel there is. Again, don't be pathetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnkillinger453 The memorial is built the community, which is the previous administration, for the public, due to public request. Use your brain. Seperation of the state and the church is really complex matter that you're intentionally misinterpreting.
It's not that the church has no place in any state asset, 70% of the people are Christian, ao it's a natural thing for the government assets to be influenced by "the church", but the separation here is as in the church can't dictate the state's decision. Not unable to influence, just not to dictate. Because the inauguration of a President is performed by a Christian, the oath is written to God. The memorials of soldiers are shaped as crosses. Want to argue, learn some actual facts
You're just pretending that you know this, but you don't, it's just disturbing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, this kind of image is hurting the Conservatives, not to insult her or anything, but the stylist of the show should think of getting a new style for Tomi Lahren, there's just not enough seriousness looking at her, and with some people who bare prejudiced, which are a lot, considering the number of stupid lefties, this will not convince them. Maybe change the hair style, less beauty pageant, more political commentator. Slow down the tone like she's saying serious stuff, because the things she said are serious, but it sounds more like an 8 year old girl at a rodeo than anything else. Not an insult, but an advice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tbz1551 It's also based on nothing except his own interpretation of Presidential Power. We're at war pal, not officially, but we're always at war with the forces of evil, and it has nothing to do with Bush's definition of it. This is the actual force of evil. A Force that wants to break our order and laws, the situation is different but the principal beneath is the same. Clear? If you're still confused, leave a reply, I'll explain it. And a higher understanding of the law, laws are what people inferred from principles, and they have flaws, so at times in need, we'll act on the principle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justinthacker370 Define luxury, kid? What is luxury? Diner at restaurant? A phone? Clothing?
Majority of consumers payments are not for luxury products, so if you say that taxing only 10% on luxury products, aka things that most people don't have, then no way it can pay for that delusional UBI, kid.
Finland is not doing well with this, Finland is stealing from people to give it to other people, nobody works there because they don't have to. What's Finland ? It's a country with population of a city and tax as high as it can get. Use your brain, don't steal from people.
VAT is used at countries that has no freedom, they tax you, why don't you get a job?
You want money that's not yours? Check your moral standard, pal.
It's not your money, don't steal, have some shame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Retrostarscream You posted from the source and then you lie about what it means. You're trolling, right?
Hey, pal, anybody can be related to the investigation and any of them could say anything on matters that doesn't relate to the investigation. You can't charge somebody of lying about how they eat lunch. IDIOT!
Pal, the report is his opinion plus his finding, you never studied law, haven't you? What would he say? I did this job incompetently. At any report, they need to state what they have done, and if Mueller didn't add the adjectives before the word, he's just being normal, but Mueller isn't normal, he's heavily biased. And if that is just his opinion then it doesn't matter, that opinion came with another opinion that he can't declare guilty, or he won't declare not guilty and it's the same. Study.
The OLC opinion DOESN'T MATTER. That opinion regards to action being taken, not findings or what you can conclude, you're a troll, right?
Ken Starr did it with Clinton, stop taking a fake excuse.
And the last thing idiot, about opinion in court of law, yeah it does matter, they can use their own opinions to lie and in the court of law a lawyer like me will just debunked your lies.
1
-
1
-
@Retrostarscream No, a prosecutor kob is first to find crime, made conclusion and then indict, you can't indict somebody without making the conclusion whether they're guilty or not, so yeah, your argument crumbled on it self. It's a solid proof that Mueller is heavily biased, not giving conclusion, that's not finishing his job on purpose, holding press conference to not say anything new except raising the concern of Congress capability of removing Presidents from office, but taking no question at all to clarify. Yeah that is biased, or if you want to have absolute proof, yeah, it's life, pal, you can never have that.
But if you won't settle for the bias case which can be made without any difficulty, I'll go for the incompetent in not doing his job. Not giving out conclusions? 40 officers to raid a man and his deaf wife? Hiring people who had records of personal dislike for the subject of investigation.
Anything else? Pal, if you're going to call those proof opinions, then fine, but remember my "opinions" at least make sense, as in how you can't poke holes in it, but your opinions are lies that I had destroyed.
Go somewhere else, small time troll.
1
-
@Retrostarscream And that's obstructive how? If The President of The United States deemed that Mueller violated the laws due to conflict on interest, it's his prerogative to fire Mueller, you want to check the law?
McGhan didn't feel comfortable doing so, he decide to resign, so The President's subordinate felt uncomfortable carrying out a completely legal order, so your case is?
Pal, The President could order for Mueller to be fired, check the law. So it's obstruction because what? The President told somebody to lie about things that had nothing to do with the investigation? He can tell Mcghan to fire anybody and then tell him to say that the President ordered McGhan to get some chicken, no legal violation there, the special counsel can't charge people who lie about the things that the Special Counsel have nothing to do with. Study, pal, you're just trolling.
1
-
@Retrostarscream Pal, you raise a question, that's your question, the law itself doesn't require the President to explain to you for no reason.
The President can order anybody to do anything as long as it is under his power. He can ask a White House intern to call Attorney General and ask him to fire Mueller, just because he feels like it. The power of the vote from the people allows him to do so.
And the conflict of interests are clear, Trump pointed them out multiple times. Unnecessary raids that feature multiple agents, leaking content to biased fake news organizations, using tactics to prosecute things that had nothing to do with any matter of the investigation, oh and hiring a team full of investigators not belong to a third party.
Clear enough? You're just ignoring proof, want to study pal?
And your little thesis at the end, totally wrong, it's his right. Go ahead, Mueller performed an incompetent job, Trump wants him to be fired, it's called common sense, you want to check the law again? Pal, idiot.
Like I said, if you were trolling, go back to school, small time troll.
1
-
1
-
@Retrostarscream Yes, he did asked McGahn to change account, but for political reason. If you're new to politics, you should know that any action taken directly by The President will be under scrutiny of the fake news media. He has every right to ask that, he also have the right to ask for McGhan cooperation, nobody can hold him for doing something that isn't limited anywhere. Mueller's investigation isn't into how The President fire a counsel, it's about Russian Collusion and crimes relating to it.
But check the law, because The President has every right to fire Mueller, then that action itself is not even remotely related to the investigation. He asked McGhan to lie to the public, to tell the press a different story, a story that wouldn't make much a difference because anybody could pointed out that Muller was doing a heavily biased job, I just did, it's just that the story of somebody else firing Mueller would look better than The President firing Mueller. Study, pal, it's not a crime.
He asked how can he fire Mueller, they told him that it is his right to ask somebody to do so.
I don't think it's lawful, I know that it is lawful. Department of Justice is under the Executive Branch, and The President, as the head of the executive Branch has the right to fire anybody he feels appropriate. If you don't agree with the action that he's taking, you can vote against him, for now other voted against you and that's it. It is lawful, study, pal.
1
-
@Retrostarscream Again, pal, false assumption right there.
You're linking the fact that what had happened behind the stage to what Sean Spicer tell reporters. First off, reporters don't have any roles here. Spicer could've told them that the earth is flat and nothing will come to him. So there that is done for for your thesis, at least do some research.
Next, Rosenstein said to officials that he won't participate in putting out a false story, you assume this as a proof for what The President had asked him to do, which can't be proven. Following a reasonable interpretation of a story isn't putting out a false story, but yet those 2 are really close to each other. You can't prove what it is, because the "story" here is about subjective arguments between the President and Rosenstein, which can interpret differently if there were false communication between the two. You can't prove anything. And even if the President had directed Rosenstein to tell a fake story, then it can't be charged as obstruction because it doesn't relate to any crime and it's not lying to the investigator, as in how he's talking to the Press and not Mueller. It's the President authority to fire Comey, if he did through an intern or secretary then it would still be legal. You can't charge people of obstruction if they're lying about what they're given the right to do, and what they did isn't even related to the subject of the investigation or toward the investigators. Your case has crumbled even more here.
So yeah, pal, law isn't just about quoting stuff that you have no idea what they are. Study!
1
-
@Retrostarscream Great, that's your thesis? So? Like I said before, just because McGhan feels doesn't mean that it is. Department of Justice is branch of the Executive, and as the head of the Executive, The President outrank McGhan, probably by quite a lot. So, anything?
Your boss feel that there is enough evidence, you do not, you resign, it's your's boss duty and right to act in what he believes. Clear, pal?
Donald Trump has every right to fire Comey, you can't argue that just because a subordinate disagree then it means obstruction, no you just simply can't. Study some law, pal.
1
-
@Retrostarscream Because there isn't enough outright, pal. You know what it's called, intelligent. Those people at the high end are biased but not stupid. You see, they steer you into their narrative, there are proof of conflict of interest, I just pointed them out, but it's not enough to absolutely confirm something that can only be confirmed by mind-reading.
So yeah, like I said, Donald Trump has the right to fire them, and if you feel that there aren't enough reasons, vote, I'll vote against you and countless other will, as they had done before. Clear? Study some law pal.
1
-
@Retrostarscream Great, so your thesis is what on the interference?
A few ads on social media cause the Clinton to lost 70 electoral votes, it's like 10 states with the population of nearly 20 million voters, is that what you're saying?
Yeah, that's rich, pal. Go study some actual law and politics.
I voted for him because he's the right choice, and his results proved that I was right, GDP growth, record low unemployment, jobs which Obama lost have returned, China is going down, Technology thief are being arrested.
So what's your point, Clinton lost because she lack a few social media post? She got the entire news network that have the viewership of 6 million every night, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, why she still lost?
How about the left wing media interference in our election? Does those Russian ad run false information? Maybe, but then aren't voters the one who decide the information to be true or not? Who supervise whether the main stream media provide true information, nobody, they've been providing false information for 2 years. So yeah, pal, study, you're just being desperate.
1
-
@Retrostarscream You do realize that information is the truth being hidden, right? By saying that you won't accept the truth just because somebody else discover it for you then you're just lying to yourself? Which grade are you in?
And he also concluded in the report that there isn't any collusion, you're citing the reason which lead to the investigation, you're trolling or what? The Steele dossier is mostly unverified, read it pal, one of the claim in that piece being rejected by the Mueller report, so you're just what?
Listen pal, I don't whether you're dumb, stubborn, or dumb and stubborn, you've been destroyed, every single thing you claim crumbled down as I knocked them down with facts and logic, and now you're just typing the most ridiculous assumption that I also knocked down easily. If you've lost, I suggest staying silent and not being desperate about it.
1
-
@Retrostarscream Perhaps you'd live better learning something, pal. Only the idiots have trust when the agencies show clear incompetent and corruption. The people keep them in check, that's how we stay free, idiot.
Go ahead, move to a country like China, they have trust, remember how there was a protest where the government used ammo on civilians, tanks and stuff, but because they got "trust", nobody ever knows about it. Pathetic, pal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davilakarlos Yeah, you didn't watched the whole footage, you took a glance at best, watching includes thinking, you can't called somebody out if all of your arguments are assumptions, anchors salaries are high, otherwise why would people want to be an anchor?
The "Dutchman" can not link the fact that most workers work for some kind of corporate to corporations paying people to follow them. Dutchman failed, as you failed to point out which part of Fox News is biased? Anything, go ahead, point it out, the "Dutchman" insult people for no reason and pretend to be righteous, it's just despicable, that's called watching, it includes thinking, try to think.
1
-
@emseek9822 You're mistaken. Pal, you can't quote part of the conversation and then claim that it's the entire conversation, it's called lying. Mr Dutchman his idiocy also accused Tucker of journalism misconduct, intentionally driving news to target "minorities", calling Tucker the "problem" to the country,
ALL OF THE ABOVE ALLEGATIONS ARE DUTCHMAN OPINIONS AND HIS OPINIONS ALONE, SUPPORTED BY NO FACTS INSTEAD OF HIS ASSUMPTION THAT TUCKER BEING A PART OF CATO INSTITUTE IS SOLID EVIDENCE, WHICH IT IS RIDICULOUS, BASELESS, TOTAL NONSENSE. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO AND ARGUE WITH DIGNITY, AS IN HOW YOU QUOTE THE ENTIRE LINE, I SUGGEST STOP BEING A TROLL AND GO BACK TO SCHOOL., CLEAR? IT'S EASY TO SEE IF YOU TRY TO THINK.
1
-
@emseek9822 You're mistaken. Pal, you can't quote part of the conversation and then claim that it's the entire conversation, it's called lying. Mr Dutchman his idiocy also accused Tucker of journalism misconduct, intentionally driving news to target "minorities", calling Tucker the "problem" to the country,
ALL OF THE ABOVE ALLEGATIONS ARE DUTCHMAN OPINIONS AND HIS OPINIONS ALONE, SUPPORTED BY NOTHING EXCEPT OF HIS ASSUMPTION THAT TUCKER BEING A PART OF CATO INSTITUTE IS SOLID EVIDENCE, WHICH IT IS RIDICULOUS, BASELESS, TOTAL NONSENSE. HE CAN NOT POINT OUT FLAWS IN CATO'S PROGRAM, HE CAN'T POINT OUT MISTAKES IN THE INSTITUTE CHAIN OF REASONING OR RESULT, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO AND ARGUE WITH DIGNITY, AS IN HOW YOU QUOTE THE ENTIRE LINE, I SUGGEST STOP BEING A TROLL AND GO BACK TO SCHOOL., CLEAR? IT'S EASY TO SEE IF YOU TRY TO THINK.
1
-
1
-
1