Posted on 05/11/2017 3:53:09 AM PDT by Zakeet
BS. The turtle manages that all by himself. Moreover, procedural slowness is the mark of business in the Senate. It's a feature. You actually want McLame and Snow and Sanders and Schumer doing what they do more rapidly. The laughter of the American public could not keep up with their gags.
What to do with the incorrigible children of other people? The normal approach would be to ignore them if possible and to not get involved in it, unless they intend to have a detrimental effect on me. They are not entitled to the respect of their fellow Americans when the thrust of what they’re doing goes beyond mere unfriendliness. They and those who have taught them must be thought of and treated as though they are the incorrigible children of other people. They should have it be known to them how things are going to be. Maybe someday when they look in the mirror, they may even realize who and/or what it was that steered them wrong.
<< talk of a constitutional crisis >>
They just throw that term out there hoping it will stick knowing full well that Trump was well within his constitutional rights to fire Comey.
Pigment protection.
Says The Hill says me “And....?”
The author:
“Niall Stanage Verified account @NiallStanage. ... And the Americans commenting make me cringe. So glad I have dual citizenship...”
A Guardian stringer and, if the history of that paper is any guideline, a Trotskyite.
The DNC/media hasn’t figured out yet that constantly shrieking about the Apocalypse has a diminishing impact.
The biggest influence on the election was all those overweighted democrat polls reported by the MSM. If Russia wanted to influence our elections, they'd be better off teaming up with the socialist MSM. The probably are doing it already.
All The President’s Men was part of a trilogy of conspiracy films from the same director. Parallax View was about a corporation that trained patsies to “kill” Kennedys.
And how is that a change from their normal behavior?
Who is that snoozer behind Comey?
A story the New York Times and Washington Post will NEVER give a damn about:
Bangladesh prime minister says Clinton personally pressured her to help foundation donor
“”Watergate was a huge nothing burger.”
And yet, the MSM and all the other lib flacks make sure to slap the “gate” suffix on anything they can when it involves a republican.”
Right.
I do not understand why so many people, even here on FR, defend the official oft repeated “historical” account of Watergate as if it is settled science and there is no room for debate.
At the time, the case against Nixon was hotly contested and politically polarized and there was NOT a single consensus version of the story.
Although the term had not been coined yet, Watergate was a textbook case of what we now call “fake news”; the entire media was aligned against Nixon, the Republican. They were determined to turn the public, who had just reelected Nixon with the greatest landslide in history, against him - and they succeeded.
All the elements of what we now call fake news were there: Nixon’s supposed demeanor, sinister psychological profiles by expert behavioralists who were able to make their diagnosis by watching him on the TV, endless speculation regarding imputed motives, chronologies that implied ad hoc cause and effect relationships without evidence, dramatic statements regarding constitutional crises and loss of the public trust. Wild hyperbole declaring horrific acts as unprecedented in human history.
A time traveler witnessing the constant chorus of Nixon’s detractors and the breathless reporting of them, would find the unfolding Watergate scandal all too familiar. It’s exactly the same crap they are trying to pull right now. Exactly.
Yet, as quick as people are to dub the current smears as fake news (which they are), most seem perfectly willing to accept the version of the history of Nixon and Watergate as told from the leftist point of view - as the true history - the only version - the objective truth - the settled science of what happened.
How did Watergate morph from being fake news (a politically motivated smear campaign wherein a mountain was made out of a mole hill) - like the RussiaGate so-called scandal of today - into being not-fake history? How did the fakeness of Watergate get forgotten?
If we can recognize fake news when we see it, why can we not recognize “fake history” when we see it?
OK, Nixon resigned in humiliation, the leftists prevailed, and the fake news of the Watergate scandal was successfully foisted on the American public. I get that - they won - we lost.
But is there some code of honor that says we, as the losers, must graciously concede to the Left their version of history for all time, even though it was fake?
I say the hell with that.
An atmosphere of crisis was perceived by the media and nothing more than another day at the office for our POTUS.
If you don't like a news source the site links to, don't read the story.
But The Drudge Report is not FreeRepublic's water carrier.
An atmosphere of crisis was perceived by the media and nothing more than another day at the office for our POTUS.
Yeah but putting that crap in red or bold don’t make it so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.