Originally Posted by wdmso
Funny I only showed the source
You did more than that. You said "the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat.." How, exactly, is one to understand that? Just some unbiased, impartial, non prejudicial aside? "Only" an objective statement of what the ban was "just" about?
.. and how they lean i didn't not comment on the information contained or dispute what they wrote .. I disparaged nothing I was very clear.. its bad optics and an imaginary threat at best
If that was "only" what" you did, why bother even posting it? Was it "only" some offhand, irrelevant aside letting us know that you think the National Review has a far right bias? If you did not wish to dispute or disparage what it's author wrote, what was the point of telling us what you judge to be its bias? Your assertion that you did not comment on the information contained is obviously false on its face. Your post implied that the article, therefore its content, was tainted by bias. Or else why point out (comment) that you think the National Review is biased?
That you didn't dispute what the article said is kind of typical of how you respond to content of various posts--you don't. You often comment on the messenger rather than the message.
I disparaged nothing I was very clear.. its bad optics and an imaginary threat at best
You disparaged the ban (I take it you mean the ban here not the article--it is often hard to follow the sequence and attributions in your pastiche style of writing) by calling it bad optics and (the danger of importing large numbers of refugees from certain areas--not the ban itself?) an imaginary threat at best.
You seem to prefer some perceived "balance" in the BBC article to a perceived lack of it in the National Review article. I didn't find much balance in the BBC's offering, and I don't think the National Review's required balance since it was pointing out misperceptions about the ban. There is no "balance" between what is in the ban and what isn't.
Nor do I find much, if any, "balance" in your post. It seems rather one-sided to me.
"It was not part of his executive order to do that." his order his responsibility to provide clear direction i guess that didnt happen
Clear direction was provided as the National Review article noted: "However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication." The Administration DID intervene to correct the misapplication. Just as in the Constitution, clear direction is provided to the Federal Government, but Courts "interpret" it incorrectly. You don't seem to mind when the Courts do that, you even think it's just a matter of opinion and OK when you like the outcome of judicial "misapplication" and it's fine for it to become the law of the land.
It seems your the one actively disparaging those news outlets you dont agree with
You mean like when I applied the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" adage in comparing your disparaging the National Review"s article because of what some think of its bias to what one might think of the BBC's article because of what some might think of its bias? Yeah, I did that.
The reports are the typical fake news that Trump accuses the media of. Well, I should be charitable, the fake news promulgated by anti-Trumpers and Democrats that the media reports (as if it were true.)
|