Vanity Fair Recycles Failed 2016 Predictions for 2020

Vanity Fair Recycles Failed 2016 Predictions for 2020

Listen to the Article!
 
It's pretty much a done deal. President Donald Trump's chances of re-election are almost non-existent. In fact for him to win the 2020 election "might take an act of God." So declared T.A. Frank in Wednesday's Vanity Fair. And if Frank's smug certainty in prognosticating the outcome of the next election sounds familiar, he was just as certain of Trump's 2016 election loss in October of that year.
So T.A. Frank 2019, meet T.A. Frank 2016 as we compare the two predictions that made it sound as if both election results were done deals before they actually happened. First let us read T.A. Frank 2019 declare that "TRUMP’S ODDS OF REELECTION KEEP GETTING WORSE."
Could Trump win again? Of course. But let’s be honest: his first victory was a miracle. A second, after four years of embarrassments and betrayals in office, might take an act of God.
Much of Frank's prediction depends on something he seems certain will happen, and that his fellow liberals are desperately praying will happen: recession:
An economic contraction, for which we’re overdue, would all but doom Trump's chances of reelection. Lots of indicators are ominous at the moment, chief among them the inverted yield curve, which portends a flight to safety. Trump wants to juice the economy with rate cuts and tax cuts, but there’s not a lot of powder left in the bag at this point, because interest rates are already low, and Trump already signed a massive tax cut into law. At some point, people get cautious with their money and retrench, and the president gets the blame. Has any incumbent president been reelected amid a recession that started on his watch? The answer depends a bit on how you measure recessions, but, basically, it’s this: not in the past 100 years.
And if there is no recession by the next election? Frank does not even consider this possibility. He just assumes it will happen. Of course, his election prediction track record as regards Trump has been somewhat less than accurate so let us now visit Frank on October 7, 2016 with the retrospectively hilarious title of "A PREMATURE OBITUARY FOR THE CANDIDACY OF DONALD TRUMP."
We are in the final weeks of Donald Trump.
You sure about that?
Like a pool player announcing a six-ball break and then sinking six, Hillary Clinton all but announced she would bait Trump into losing his head during the first presidential debate and then did so, sending him into a spiral of self-destruction. You don’t have to like Clinton to tip your hat to the achievement or concede that it was a public service. That Trump was arrogant and insouciant enough to walk into the most important 90 minutes of his campaign unprepared—and then spend the following week rehashing it in midnight rants—showed every fence-sitting voter how dangerous he would be in power. A competent performance in debates two and three won’t undo the damage, nor should it.
Yup! Trump's inevitable 2016 loss was a done deal...until Election Day
The good news for Frank is that if his prediction record proves every bit as accurate in 2020 as in 2016, he won't have to write a new post-election article. He can just copy and paste his November 14, 2016 story: "WILL TRUMP BE IMPEACHED?"
2020 Presidential Vanity Fair T.A. Frank

Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial

Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial By John Couwels, Ray Sanchez and Eric Levenson, CNN  4 hrs ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-parking-lot-shooting-that-led-to-stand-your-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp


a blurry image of a person: A still photo from a surveillance camera showing what police describe as Michael Drejka shooting Markies McGlockton on July 19, 2018.© Surveillance Video A still photo from a surveillance camera showing what police describe as Michael Drejka shooting Markies McGlockton on July 19, 2018.
Drejka, who didn't take the witness stand, tried unsuccessfully to use Florida's "stand your ground' law as a defense for justifiable homicide. The case renewed a nationwide debate on the controversial law.
Jury deliberations lasted about six hours, with a brief pause around 9:30 p.m. when jurors sought clarification on the instructions for deciding guilt or innocence.
The judge sent the jury back to the deliberations room after rereading the instructions to them, and about a half hour later the jury announced it had a decision.
McGlockton's family wept at the verdict. Drejka at first had no reaction but then started wiping his face as the judge spoke to the jury.
Defense attorneys rested their case earlier in the day after two expert witnesses testified about the defendant's state of mind and his actions at the time of the controversial shooting.
The court later instructed jurors on the law before closing arguments in which prosecutors portayed Drejka as an armed vigilante and defense attorneys described him as a victim who feared for his life.
Prosecutor Fred Schaub quietly told McGlockton's family before the closings, "I bet you never thought this day would come."
In closing for the state, Scott Rosenwasser urged jurors to ask themselves whether the defendant was justified in shooting an unarmed man who was, he said, trying to protect his family and retreating when he was killed.
He called the shooting intentional, saying Drejka faced no imminent bodily harm or death and that he took "the most perfect shot he could take."
a man wearing a suit and tie: Michael Drejka at an August 2018 court hearing.© Jim Damaske/Tampa Bay Times via AP Michael Drejka at an August 2018 court hearing.
"The defendant himself tells you it's manslaughter," the prosecutor said. "You know what Markeis McGlockton is guilty of? He is guilty of loving and trying to protect his family and he died because of it."
a person holding a laptop: Michael Drejka reenacted the shooting in a police interview that was played in court on Thursday.© POOL Michael Drejka reenacted the shooting in a police interview that was played in court on Thursday.
Drejka was not the vigilante portrayed by the prosecution but a man who believed himself to be in mortal danger, Trevena said.
"Mr. Drejka thought the danger was real," he argued. "This large man pushed him to the ground. The threat was real."
Had Drejka not pulled his weapon, he could have died, the defense attorney said.
"He had the right to stand his ground and no duty to retreat," Trevena told the jury.
The case amounted to more than a parking spot dispute, he said. It centered on his client -- the "true victim"-- making "a split-second decision" after being violently thrust to the ground.
"The game changed when the gun was pulled. ...Then the game was over," he said.
Thursday, video of the defendant's police interview, including Drejka's reenactment of the July 19, 2018, shooting in Clearwater, was played in court.
His attorney has maintained the killing was in self-defense after Drejka was threatened and then shoved to the ground.
After he shot McGlockton, Drejka told police that he fired only after the man pushed him down and ran at him.
But surveillance video shows McGlockton taking several steps back in the moments before the fatal shot -- a point on which police have challenged Drejka.
"What happens if I told you that I looked at the video and at no time and point does he come running up toward you? He actually takes a step back," Det. Richard Redman asks Drejka the day of the shooting.
"I would disagree," Drejka responded.
The prosecution rested its case Thursday after two days of testimony.
The incident began when Drejka confronted and began yelling at McGlockton's girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, who was parked with two of her children in a handicapped-accessible spot outside a Circle A food store. As their argument escalated, McGlockton came from the store and shoved Drejka to the ground.
Drejka then pulled out his gun and fired at McGlockton, who had taken several steps back, the surveillance video shows.
In opening statements, defense attorney Bryant Camareno argued that Drejka's comments to police were simply his best recollection and showed his perception at the time.
"He wasn't lying; he was remembering the best that he could from the impact that he sustained," Camareno said.
'What else should I expect?'
'What else should I expect?'
Drejka's attorneys are no longer arguing that he should be immune to prosecution because of "stand your ground." He mentioned it at the end of his police interview.
"(Unclear) the 'stand your ground' thing, and I did exactly what I thought I was supposed to be doing at that time considering what was happening to myself," he says on the tape.
In the police interview, Drejka got down on the ground to reenact the moments of the fatal shooting. He said that he was shoved from the side and thought McGlockton was going to kick and beat him.
"If he was going to hit me that hard to begin with, a blind side from the get-go, what else should I expect?" Drejka said.
Police questioned him several times on the discrepancy between the video and his statements that McGlockton took steps toward him.
"That is exactly what I saw," Drejka insisted.
In addition, he said he fired just one shot to "neutralize" what he saw as a threat.
"I shoot to save my own ass, and that's that," Drejka said in the interview.
McGlockton had MDMA in his system
Thursday also featured testimony from a police use-of-force expert and a pathologist who examined McGlockton.
In his police interview, Drejka mentioned the 21-foot rule -- the general idea that a suspect within 21 feet can attack an officer faster than the officer can pull a weapon and fire. But Roy Dedary, a police trainer, testified for the prosecution that the rule does not mean you can shoot someone within 21 feet.
Michael Drejka, who fatally shot an unarmed man, Markeis McGlockton, last summer in Florida during a dispute over a handicapped-accessible parking spot, was found guilty of manslaughter Friday night.
The judge set the sentencing date for October 10. Drejka faces up to 30 years in prison.
Rosenwasser said the case was "cut and dry," the killing of a man who came out to protect his girlfriend from a self-proclaimed "parking lot vigilante" with a "pet peeve" about enforcing handicap parking rules.
Rosenwasser reminded jurors that Drejka admitted to police that he would have no reason to shoot if the victim was retreating.
The families of McGlockton and his girlfriend were not in the courtroom for the defense team's closing, delivered by John Trevena. He said his client was thrown to the ground and would have been "beaten to a pulp" had he not firmly stood his ground to a younger and larger aggressor.
"The right to stay alive is the most fundamental right," he said.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri initially declined to arrest Drejka, citing Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law, which allows people to respond to threats or force without fear of criminal prosecution. But a month later, the state attorney charged Drejka, 49, with manslaughter.

Trump Challenges Birthright Citizenship





Trump Challenges Birthright Citizenship





The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was what we call an “originalist” when it came to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. He believed the only way to read the Constitution was in the context of the times when its provisions were written which formed the intent of those who wrote and later amended it. We could only interpret what they meant by reading what they wrote through the filter of the events of their day, not our day.
The issue of the 14th Amendment and whether it conveys birthright citizenship just from being born on American soil  has resurfaced in the context of the current debate on immigration and border security. The answer can be found in looking at the times in which it was written and examining the actual words and thoughts of those who wrote it.
The 14h Amendment was written in 1868 after a bitter Civil War ended slavery. It was written to ensure the civil rights of freed slaves and to correct the injustices spawned by the 1857 Dred Scottdecision which denied that blacks were entitled to citizenship under the Constitution. Surely it cannot be seriously argued that the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind babies born to residents of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador who managed to sneak their pregnant bodies past a U.S. Border Patrol that didn’t exist yet in violation of immigration laws that hadn’t been written yet?
Like abortion rights, which were divined from the “penumbras” and “emanations” said to be lurking somewhere in that document, supporters of birthright citizenship say, well, the language is imprecise and the authors didn’t really mean to exclude the offspring of Guatemalans born in states which didn’t exist in 1868. This is a clear violation of the Scalia originalist doctrine. The Constitution is not a living document and should be read in the context of the events of 1868, not 2019.
President Trump has once again noted the absurdity of the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment that invented the concept of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. As reported by FoxNews:
Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, President Trump again threatened to end what he called the "ridiculous" policy of birthright citizenship, which awards citizenship automatically to those born in the United States.
"We're looking at that very seriously," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Kentucky. "Birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land -- you walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby's now a U.S. citizen. We're looking at it very, very seriously ...It’s, frankly, ridiculous."
Indeed it is, according to Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky, who argued that birthright citizenship supporters play word games to justify their position:
In an op-ed published last year by FoxNews.com, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky said critics "conveniently ignored or misinterpreted" the 14th Amendment's requirement that illegal immigrant children be "subject to" the jurisdiction of the United States.
"The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted," Spakovsky wrote. "But it does not place them within the political 'jurisdiction' of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment."
Spakovsky added: "Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction -- which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws -- and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well."
During debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the14th Amendment?        
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself. A natural born citizen…”
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automaticbirthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and many legal scholars dispute the idea.
Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens:
John Eastman of the Claremont Institute testified before the subcommittee, saying, the Supreme Court has never actually held that anyone who happens to make it to U.S. soil can unilaterally bestow citizenship on their children merely by giving birth here.
Although such an understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment has become widespread in recent years, it is not the understanding of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, or of those who ratified it, or of the leading constitutional commentators of the time. Neither was it the understanding of the Supreme Court when the Court first considered the matter in 1872, or when it considered the matter a second time a decade later in 1884, or even when it considered the matter a third time fifteen years after that in the decision many erroneously view as interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to mandate automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on U.S. soil, whether their parents were here permanently or only temporarily, legally or illegally, or might even be here as enemy combatants seeking to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens.
Eastman argues that the modern view of the Fourteenth Amendment ignores a key phrase in the Citizenship Clause. Mere birth on U.S. soil just isn’t enough. “A person must be both ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ and ‘subject to its jurisdiction.’”
In a interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July, Michael Anton, a former Trump national security adviser, pointed out:
… "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret -- subject to the jurisdiction thereof…
"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”
There may be hope though for correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent. The misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation or even by executive order. We can correct it and we should. Donald Trump was right -- becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.
Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

The Left's Neverland

The Left's Neverland






I hear more and more frequently concerns about an impending civil war. It is certain that something momentous is taking place; the signs are all around us, but I’m not at all sure that the somethingwill turn out to be two sides of the same country warring over principles, like the Civil War, which was mainly about slavery and states’ rights. Now, we’re up to our nose-piercings in politically polarizing problems and the leftist contingent of the country doesn’t even like America anymore.  If we come to open warfare, it will be as two separate nations battling it out. Over what? Not over policies, not over territory, not even over moral issues. We will be fighting over reality.
The left, which I used to see as misguided but mostly benign, has built for itself -- because it knows it can’t convince Americans to throw away freedom -- a make-believe utopian country. It has constructed, ex nihilo, a nation that has no borders, no laws, no specific language, and no recognizable morality. When Barrack Obama said he wanted to “fundamentally change” America, he wasn’t bluffing. When he’d stick out his chin and say, ”That’s not who we are,” he wasn’t talking about us; he was talking about the citizens of his make-believe land which I’ll name “Neverland.”
The name is suitable in many ways. In the first place, it isn’t real and never will be.
Even if the Democrats win in 2020, and even if they slap the Green New Deal into place, Neverland will never be the utopia the left envisions because socialist utopias never are. They routinely end in poverty, tyranny, and death.
The word “utopia” comes into English from the Greek. The “u” is from “eu” which means “good,” like in “eulogy,” and the “top” means “place,” as in “topography.” A utopia is to be the perfect society, the perfect place, but there is always a catch. In James Hilton’s Lost Horizon, Shangri-La looked perfect -- calm, cultured, moderate, fair -- but once there, you couldn’t leave. It wasn’t that guards and prison doors kept people in. It was just impossible to travel; the terrain was too forbidding. So the heroes were trapped in perfection, which, ironically, made it a hell. Nothing about Huxley’s Brave New World was brave or even new. Nothing about life in Orwell’s 1984 was good. But the left is under the delusion that Neverland can reach faultlessness.
Secondly, “Neverland” is an appropriate name because it’s where lost boys (and girls, or whatever) can avoid growing up. They can fly anywhere -- even to climate change conferences -- without using any fossil fuels. They can fight in swash-buckling, Antifa rumbles without being either arrested or injured. They can imagine any reality they want and they can pretend that whatever they dream up will be superior to American reality.
They can convince themselves that it’s possible to change the climate of the entire world by banning plastic straws or dissuading cattle from passing gas. There in Neverland, liabilities -- national debt or student loans -- don’t ever have to be paid. Money doesn’t have to be earned.  Medical care can be both top-notch and free. In Neverland, the Lost Boys can have a pseudo-family to replace the real one they didn’t have in 21st-century America. In fact, I suspect that this lack of family is the main causal factor in the creation of Neverland.  Whether the citizens of this new land are Peter Pans or Tinkerbells, they find belonging and purpose in pretending that their new world is viable. This is at the heart of the visceral hatred for Donald Trump. He is real, which has to mean that their world isn’t, and if you live in a make-believe, untenable world, you don’t matter; you have no purpose. Egos are cracking under the strain.
Now, over 150 years after the Civil War, we find ourselves living in a world that has tucked reality away in a locked cupboard and our schools, our media, and many of our churches don’t want it to get out. We live in a TV-Internet-Smartphone world where our music is mostly canned, our connections with people are at least once-removed, and our children never look up. The virtual has taken over to a point where people actually think we can alter history by removing statues and painting over murals, and they have to change history because Neverland has to have its own annals, its own chronicles. Neverland is not America.
This explains why both Obama and Hillary could talk with such disdain about half of the population. We aren’t their people. They were running to be president of Neverland, not of traditional America. They could call us “deplorable” and mock our devotion to the Word of God and to our right to bear arms because we are not citizens of their realm. Americans are “other.”
You see, in Neverland the only important thing is how its inhabitants feel. What actually is –- I speak here of data, of facts, of actual –- as opposed to virtual –- experiences. In Neverland there are no pesky absolutes, no facing up to Almighty God, no bearing the consequences of our choices. In Neverland one can indulge one’s strangest and most disgusting sexual fantasies and the Neverlandiers will cheer you on and protect you. Isn’t that what happened at Michael Jackson’s mansion of the same name? Isn’t that what happened to the blue dress in the Oval Office? Isn’t that why Jeffery Epstein is dead? There in that prison cell, he got too close to reality.
In Neverland the Constitution is “living,” animated -- like some kind of Pixar cartoon -- and can be altered to fit the current narrative. If the present story they’re selling needs laws to be ignored, then they are. If a new law -- like the proposed red flag legislation -- seems to fit the tale, then they whip up one. Obama once proudly declared that he had “a pen and a phone” and was therefore apparently qualified to make up whatever laws he liked. If the facts of an issue are “inconvenient” then the Neverlandian news organization rearranges them, buries them, lies about them. No reality is allowed to seep into the realm.
And in Neverland, not only are the laws and the facts flexible, the language is as well. In Neverland they have created a whole new part of speech -- the flex-noun. These handy words can mean anything -- like “racist” or “lie” or “hate.” No dictatorial dictionary holds sway in this magical kingdom. Newspeak is nothing compared to Neverlandian and all real languages are verboten.
Which brings me to my third point: Neverlandia is ruled by various Captain Hook-type tyrants, by 21st-century pirates. In Neverland pirating is done through lobbying Congress, through selling America’s secrets to foreign powers -- which is acceptable behavior since America is, to the Neverlandiers, a foreign power itself, -- but mainly through taxation. The Lost Boys have figured out ways to absolve themselves from having to pay taxes -- they park their yachts in neighboring states, craft and claim remarkable deductions, or live tax-free in their parents’ basements.
I don’t know how we’re going to bring these people back. Their fairytale world is not a good place and we can see this by looking at the suicide rates, at the drug overdoses, at the homelessness that is creeping over that land. And it is a different country altogether, which is why we can no longer discuss things and come to compromises; you can’t compromise with traitors. The left has left America and are currently citizens of an impossible, angry, fearful, hateful land which will never, never make them happy.
Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking.

Fox News Online No Longer Accepting Comments

Fox News Online No Longer Accepting Comments
Vanity ^ | 8/23/2019 | Self 
Posted on 8/23/2019, 8:24:42 AM by Boomer


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3773903/posts
All the stories I checked today do not let anyone comment. I'm not doing anything different so if anyone is having a different experience; please post it here.



























Some
Stolen
FreeRepublic
Comments:









Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last


1 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:24:42 AM by Boomer

To: Boomer
That’s what dissenter and FR are for.
2 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:25:15 AM by cuban leaf (We're living in Dr. Zhivago but without the love triangle)

To: Boomer
Yup—the Murdoch youngsters have taken over—and they do _not_ want to hear from the deplorables.
3 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:27:42 AM by cgbg (Democracy dies in darkness when Bezos bans books.)

To: Boomer
Yahoo! puts ads on the comment section on MY screen which prevents me from commenting. Others seem to have no problem.
4 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:27:51 AM by BipolarBob (Heaven has gates, walls and immigration policy but Hell has an open border policy. Food for thought.)

To: Boomer
No longer accepting criticism............
5 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:27:55 AM by davidb56

To: Boomer
Ironically, I found FR because FoxNews shut down their bulletin board in 98 because it was too heated.
6 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:29:55 AM by Eddie01

To: Boomer
Fox News has become just another outlet of the Ministry of Propaganda.
It’s only a matter of time before the get rid of their prime time stars.
7 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:30:14 AM by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here Of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)

To: Boomer
I don’t think I’ve ever visited FOX on-line.
8 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:30:37 AM by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)

To: Boomer
I’ve switched to OANN exclusively now.
Tucker seems like milque toast now, and all Hannity says is Russia, Russia, Stormy, Stormy, racism, racism...
Enough of Fox “News”.
9 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:30:56 AM by chris37 (Monday, March 25 2019 is Maga Day!)

To: JimRed
10 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:32:23 AM by Boomer (Our melting pot has turned into a pressure cooker)

To: chris37
Tucker has been AWESOME of late.
11 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:32:45 AM by LeonardFMason

To: Boomer
12 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:32:45 AM by NobleFree ("law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual")

To: Boomer
Fox News? Are they still around?
13 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:33:51 AM by Howie66 ("...Against All Enemies, Foreign and Democrat.....")

To: cgbg
“the Murdoch youngsters have taken over”
Yupper ! They’re overseeing the demise of a former really good thing....
14 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:33:56 AM by litehaus (A memory toooo long.............)

To: Boomer
At least half their clicks were from liberals.
15 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:33:56 AM by SaxxonWoods (The internet has driven the world mad.)

To: LeonardFMason
He was awesome when he said White Supremacy was a hoax.
And then he wasn’t really anymore.
16 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:34:54 AM by chris37 (Monday, March 25 2019 is Maga Day!)

To: Boomer
Fox doesn’t want to be called out on their BS.
17 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:35:00 AM by Conserv

To: Boomer
Still available on a pretty controversial topic - a gay liaison on federal property:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/more-gsa-debauchery-probe-finds-ex-official-had-sex-on-agencys-roof-with-white-house-staffer
18 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:35:38 AM by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)

To: Boomer
Judas had the same problem.
19 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:35:59 AM by DungeonMaster (Prov 24: Do not fret because of evildoers. Do not associate with those given to change.)

To: chris37
Greg Gutfeld is the only one over there with real talent.
20 posted on 8/23/2019, 8:36:42 AM by Trump.Deplorable


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last















-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------

---------------------------Rules are Still In Development-----------------------




====================================================================================================================================================
Rules are Still In Development




----->

Search This Blog