Comments by "A.J. Hart" (@cobbler88) on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" channel.

Had the guest not chosen to use up so much time crying about his introduction maybe he'd have had more time to speak on issues of actual substance. 🤣
11
36:00 - and THIS is why I can't trust Piers as a "journalist." President Obama didn't deport a record number of people. What he did was EXPAND the technical definition of "deport" to include everyone who was simply turned away at the border. Its like claiming you had a drug bust because you told a child to "just say no." Piers should know this.
2
@Mido_Jaara That was the problem - and not necessarily an accidental one. He chose to quibble about tangental points from the second he was introduced, rather than getting to the meat of certain issues. Again, I'm not sure that wasn't by design. It's a common rhetorical trick to throw a fit about language and side issues when you're positions on the heart of these matters is generally indefensible.
2
It's laughable how Ana wants to trumpet the belief that if you win, then there's no need to be tossing lawsuits around, given the 4+ years of lawfare we just witnessed. Plus, Trump should have gone after social media during his first term, but he won, so he seems to have decided that it wasn't necessary. How did THAT work out for him in 2020?
1
@HelenKistler You're just repeating others who are putting ... nuanced ... information out there, although I'd wager NPR (ridiculous source, btw) knew it was so. You're not actually putting forth support for an argument. But here ya go, sunshine: "High Deportation Mumbers are Misleading," Los Angeles Times, 4/1/2014
1
Not at all. Then again, we have a lot of anti-Semites in here and it's difficult to figure out which ones are ignorant, which ones are disingenuous and which are just plain stupid.
1
@Ťħinkerbełļ If you can't recognize the difference between a propagandist and a "truth seeker," you ARE done. Take care.
1
@@TestySatchel No need. That's 30 seconds pissed away for no reason that advanced the debate. It's why he did it. It's a tactic. It's just not recognized as skillful by people in the communications business.
1
@d3r4g45 Like an old SNL skit. "I'm not the one being defensive. YOU'RE the one being defensive." 🤣
1
@@TimbreWx Everyone seems VERY intent on dwelling on the amount of time pissed away, rather than the concept of repeatedly nitpicking in order to intentionally be able to avoid having to reveal indefensible positions. No surprise there.
1
Mohammad has no genuine rhetorical skills. He just has a bag of tricks he uses to avoid addressing indefensible positions on the heart of various issues. To be honest, based only on my experience, this is not unusual for a people who will smile at you and say, "Let me share this with you" as they proceed to blatantly lie to your face, KNOWING you know they're lying. 🤣
1
And completely stupid if you know anything about this history of all this.
1
Wow. We have so many thinly veiled anti-Semites in here that it's difficult to figure out which ones are ignorant, which ones are disingenuous, which ones are gullible and which are just plain stupid. 🤣🤣🤣
1
I can already tell this asshole doesn't have anything defensible to say by the fact that he's quibbling about language before they even get into anything, trying to back Piers against a wall before even getting to anything of substance. Hard pass.
1
@barryfadams Yes. Piers should independently prove every single thing he comments on. That isn't stupid on its very face at all. 🤣
1
The "Palestinians" are the occupiers. They fled like rats decades ago when the going got tough then demanded a "right of return" when the coast had cleared. They have never had a state in the region and the only reason they try to dig in so much where they ARE is because none of their Muslim brother countries want anything to do with them.
1
@imansafwat5080 They fled when their Muslim brothers surrounded Israel and tried to destroy it. Then, after Israel had defeated those nations, the Palestinians figured they should be allowed to stroll back in and pick up where they left off. And if the adjacent Muslim countries didn't hate the Palestinians so much, we likely wouldn't have such an issue right now.
1
Aaaand in 10 seconds, Mark Lamont Hill demonstrates why it's a waste of time to listen to anything he says. That should make this move much more quickly.
1
In the NYT defense, Hamas is a terror group. Calling someone a "Hamas terrorist" is like calling someone a "shooting gunman." Also, in American journalism, "murder" is still treated more as a legal term, so "killing," etc., are generally used instead. If I say OJ is a killer, I have much more legal coverage than if I call him a murderer.
1