Fox and Friends

[twocoach]

Didn't know you white people knew what was best for all the black people out there.... keep letting them know, though. I'm sure you know what is best for them more so than they do.

You do realize that no one here seems to be doing any of the things you are claiming here, right?

Discrediting and devaluing a black persons opinion/story/feelings/etc. becuase their political beliefs don't align with yours is doing just that.

That seems to only be happening in your assumptions.

[ousdahl]

Man. I know I shouldn’t. But, Illy, as a gesture of good faith, I’ll respond.

I thought it was ironic that they’re calling out the lack of diversity when just two nights before, their other commentators cried that Liberal media needs to stop playing identity politics, cuz today in Merica “nobody cares what the color of your skin is”...

And this morning’s allegations from a panel that features even less diversity than the democratic debates they’re criticizing.

So to make up for it, and show everyone how diverse they are, they bring in aforesaid token black guy as a guest. That’s all fine and dandy, except he just goes on to diss Democrats while saying nothing at all to address how republicans do anything to be more diverse.

Oh! And he also doesn’t bother to even touch on the fact the incumbent potus, their guy they’ve been waiting for, carried all of 8 percent of the African American vote.

You’d think the fellow would have addressed as much, seeing as he’s sooo concerned about diversity and all.

And I really don’t feel like I watch Fox News to be outraged, though it seems many do, whether they realize it or not.

Again, I watch Fox News for the perspective. And the lulz

[Leawood]

On this "token" issue, can Illy or some other Trump apologist/"Dem" basher explain to me why, in the middle of the background audience (directly in front of the cameras) at the Michigan campaign rally a couple of weeks ago, there was a young black female surrounded by white folks.

[twocoach]

On this "token" issue, can Illy or some other Trump apologist/"Dem" basher explain to me why, in the middle of the background audience (directly in front of the cameras) at the Michigan campaign rally a couple of weeks ago, there was a young black female surrounded by white folks.

It has to be because Trump and his staff spoke personally to each of those people and awarded them those choice spots based on their unique, individual merits and accomplishments.

[DCHawk1]

The aid was enacted into law.
All of DC's if's and but's don't mean squat, as soon as the appearance of an investigation was requested it became a crime.

Nope.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZ1rIz

ZOMGZOMGZOMG!

[Deleted User 289]

A white liberal (ousdahl) discrediting and devaluing the opinion of a black guy. And calling him a token black guy simply because he doesn't think how ousdahl wants black people to think is/was cringeworthy.

And the silence, as always, from the lefties on this board when he (or a few others) does that (semi-frequently), honestly tells me all I need to know about some of the self righteous liberals on this board. Assuming you know what is best for black people better than they (the ones who don't identify as democrats) do.

Lots of lulz. And yes, I do "got it".

* EDIT

You know what? F it. I shouldn't care.

[Deleted User 295]

Did you call me names?

[Deleted User 289]

No.
My post was way too long so I decided to delete it.
Like I said, I shouldn't care - and sometimes I put too much stock in to what you (and others) say.
I need to do a better job of figuring when it's best for me (and others) to remain in "silence".

[Deleted User 295]

I need to do a better job of figuring when it's best for me (and others) to remain in "silence".

I do as well.

I'm sorry if some of the things I say make you aggravated/annoyed/angry/sad/etc. I'm sure some things are lost in translation, and some things I'm simply just not intelligent enough or eloquent enough to put into words effectively enough to portray my true feelings/intentions.

[ousdahl]

meta

[Shirley]

[DCHawk1]

We also know...that Obama committed a "crime" in 2014 and that Trump's "crime" was rectified when the funds were released, while Obama's never wuz.

[Deleted User 295]

Don't you do that whataboutism! It only matters when Trump does it.

[DCHawk1]

There are no criminal penalties associated with Trump's "crime." It's purely administrative. Moreover, when the GAO pursues this "crime," they sue for the release of funds. And the funds have already been released...so...

[Shirley]

We also know...that Obama committed a "crime" in 2014 and that Trump's "crime" was rectified when the funds were released, while Obama's never wuz.

Attempting to conflate President Obama with Trump's scheme to leverage his Presidency, the United States Government, and American taxpayer's money by withholding military aid to bribe the leader of a foreign country, an ally of the US fighting a war against one of our greatest enemies, not for our country's but his own benefit in order to use foreign influence to help him deny American citizens their will in the 2020 election, is pathetic.

Pathetic.

But, you do you.

[DCHawk1]

We also know...that Obama committed a "crime" in 2014 and that Trump's "crime" was rectified when the funds were released, while Obama's never wuz.

Attempting to conflate President Obama with Trump's scheme to leverage his Presidency, the United States Government, and American taxpayer's money by withholding military aid to bribe the leader of a foreign country, an ally of the US fighting a war against one of our greatest enemies, not for our country's but his own benefit in order to use foreign influence to help him deny American citizens their will in the 2020 election, is pathetic.

Pathetic.

But, you do you.

It's not me who conflated anything. I did not bring the GAO ruling up. YOU did. I merely explained that the GAO ruling was irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything. That doesn't excuse what Trump did. But it also doesn't have anything to do with impeachment.

[zsn]

That doesn't excuse what Trump did. But it also doesn't have anything to do with impeachment.

mmmm......if there is a "doesn't excuse" clause then there needs to be a "consequence" clause (as in 'whatchagonnadoaboutit'). Modern GOP has lost all sense of what to do in case of "doesn't excuse". The latter sentence is the result of the former sentence.

[Geezer]

It's a cult.

[DCHawk1]

That doesn't excuse what Trump did. But it also doesn't have anything to do with impeachment.

mmmm......if there is a "doesn't excuse" clause then there needs to be a "consequence" clause (as in 'whatchagonnadoaboutit'). Modern GOP has lost all sense of what to do in case of "doesn't excuse". The latter sentence is the result of the former sentence.

What's that have to do with me?

[chiknbut]

In honor of Jim Bakker's 80th birthday - an incredible video tribute.

Guess who's missing?