ChrisWeigant.com

Sean Spicer's "Ban" Ban Didn't Last Long

[ Posted Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 – 17:25 UTC ]

If it weren't such a serious subject, the irony would be downright hilarious. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer tried his hand at being politically correct. Why he did so is a mystery known only to the inner workings of the Trump administration, but the eventual outcome was nothing short of utter failure -- undermined, in the end, by his own boss.

The heart of all the confusion was what to call Donald Trump's Muslim ban. Trump, back during the presidential campaign, used to brag (inaccurately) that he was the first Republican to start talking about building a wall on our southern border and border security in general. This was not correct -- plenty of Republicans had spoken of both previously. But Trump did introduce many brand-new ideas during the course of the campaign, one of which was the Muslim ban. Nobody was talking about banning entry to Muslims in this country before Trump.

Fourteen months ago, Trump put out a statement which was titled: "Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration." Pretty clear title, I have to say. This statement began: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." In his announcement of his new position, he repeated this line in person and even embellished it a bit ("what the Hell is going on").

So, to recap: the Muslim ban was Trump's idea from the get-go, he called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," and "Preventing Muslim Immigration" was the title theme. That all seems pretty clear.

Rudy Giuliani flat-out admitted as much, last Saturday: "I'll tell you the whole history of it. When he [Trump] first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban.' He called me up, he said: 'Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'" Again, not confusing at all -- a pretty straightforward explanation of how Trump's Muslim ban came to be.

Obviously, part of showing Trump "the right way to do it legally" involved some advice along the lines of: "Don't use the word 'Muslim,' because that makes it unconstitutional." The word Muslim subsequently got dropped, in both the order itself and in the way Trump and the White House spoke of it. This was the beginning of the Trump administration being forced into doing something Trump so obviously hates -- being politically correct. Remember all that chest-thumping at the Republican National Convention over how bold and brave the GOP was to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism"? They were going to be the stalwarts who stood up to all that P.C. nonsense from the left, and call things what they were, plain and simple.

Even so, the word "ban" wasn't ever an issue at all. Trump tweeted out over the weekend: "If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the 'bad' would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad 'dudes' out there!" He also said, on Saturday: "We're going to have a very, very strict ban, and we're going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years."

Trump wasn't the only one to repeatedly use the term. Kellyanne Conway, on Sunday morning, said: "This is a ban on travel, prospective travel from countries...." Most amusingly, Sean Spicer himself used the term twice in the past few days. From Sunday: "It is a 90-day ban to ensure that we have further vetting restrictions so that we know who's coming to this country." And from Monday: "The ban deals with seven countries that the Obama administration had previously identified as needing further travel restrictions."

But then on Tuesday, Spicer astonishingly tried to rewrite the entire history of the term. "It's not a travel ban," Spicer insisted, claiming it was all the media's fault in the first place: "You guys caused the confusion about the Trump administration's new temporary travel ban... by calling it a travel 'ban.'" Obviously, he hadn't gotten his own memo to stop calling it a "ban," since he did so to define what shouldn't be called a travel ban as a "travel ban." Got all that? Spicer plowed on, stating that President Donald Trump was "just using the words that the media is using," and, later, after a reporter suggested his message was getting confused: "I'm not confused. The words that are being used to describe it are derived from what the media is calling it. He has been very clear that it is extreme vetting."

Got all that? It's the dastardly media who started using the term that Trump himself came up with, and now Trump is using this term not because he came up with it himself, but rather because that's what the media is now calling it. George Orwell only missed being a prophet by 33 years, it seems, as Sean Spicer now seems to think he's in charge of the Ministry of Truth.

The only problem with all this was clearly identified by Sarah Palin, years ago: "I just hope the lamestream media won't twist my words by repeatin' 'em verbatim." Oh, wait... that was actually Tina Fey spoofing Palin on Saturday Night Live, but in the spirit of the brave new world of "alternative facts" ushered in by the Trump administration, I'm just going to go ahead and insist that Palin actually said it. Take that, lamestream media!

The abject failure of Spicer's attempt to rewrite history and reality came crashing back to Earth, though, when Trump distanced himself from Spicer's ham-handed attempt to engage in such unseemly political correctness. Trump tweeted, in response to all the rampant confusion: "Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!" For "Everybody," read: "My own administration's chief mouthpiece."

Thus endeth (one assumes) the "ban" ban from the White House podium. Banning the "Muslim" part of it was hard enough (again, one assumes), but banning the "ban" was just too steep a semantic hill to climb. Spicer's "ban" ban hasn't itself been banned yet (which would result, amusingly, in a "ban" ban ban), but who knows what Trump will tweet out early next morning?

Donald Trump was quite clear about his objective, from the beginning. He wanted to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Period. He didn't use the word ban, instead he called for a "total and complete shutdown" -- which is nothing more than very forcefully defining the word "ban." Trump portrayed himself as the champion of being anti-PC, so he certainly didn't shy away from the word "Muslim" in defining his brand-new policy, either. He then tasked Rudy Giuliani with drafting a "Muslim ban" (as Giuliani just helpfully pointed out), since Giuliani is much more familiar with both federal law and the Constitution. Giuliani obviously told Trump at some point to stop saying "Muslim," since that would undermine the legal defense of the order in a big way. But to insist that the media came up with the term "ban" is just ludicrous, which is why Trump himself had to rescue Sean Spicer from the limb he had crawled out upon.

The real question here (after you finish chuckling at the naked irony, that is) is why Spicer decided to institute his own personal "ban" ban. There's really only one possible answer, and that is because he felt that the term was causing Trump political damage. There is no other conceivable reason for Spicer to attempt such spin, even if he did fail utterly at convincing anyone. Trump wanted a Muslim ban, plain and simple. He was told he couldn't legally have one, so he settled for second-best and had to (in fine politically-correct fashion) drop the term "Muslim" in order to preserve the thin veneer of perceived legality that Giuliani and his task force had hastily slapped onto the policy. Then Spicer tried to take this one step further and insist the media had come up with the term in the first place, and was just trying to make Trump look bad by using it. This was laughably and demonstrably false, and Trump himself had to point out how ridiculous the argument had become.

Donald Trump got away with plenty of convenient memory loss on the campaign trail. He could swear that he never said something, and his fervent followers would believe him (even though there was videotape of Trump saying it multiple times). It was all the media's fault (for repeatin' his words verbatim), and that's all they really needed to hear.

But now that he's the country's leader, he isn't going to be able to get away with such selective memory loss any more. It's not going to be as easy to toss things down the Orwellian memory hole from the White House -- at least, if the press continues to do their job. We have not always been at war with Eastasia, and Trump's Muslim ban -- ever since he himself introduced the idea to the political landscape -- will always be a Muslim ban, no matter what Sean Spicer tries to call it.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

106 Comments on “Sean Spicer's "Ban" Ban Didn't Last Long”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What does the Trump administration mean by 'extreme vetting' and how does it differ from the vetting process that exists today?

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Being close to 45 is toxic - he destroys people's credibility and often their careers. The lust for power comes with a big price and Bannon is only adding to the cost. Whether Tillerson likes it or not, he now owns the Muslim ban. Price is going to own the ACA repeal disaster and Maddis is likely to own the fruit case ideas Flynn et al announce over the Iran provocation.

    Spicer is the most visible and so is most scrutinized by both sides. I think he is going to age fast.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I was a hardliner in Tehran who thought the agreement over nukes was a bad idea, I'd be trying to provoke 45 as much as possible.

    They fired of a missile this week, and it will be an insight into the power struggles in Tehran over the coming year if there are more aggressive moves - possibly Iranian Revolutionary Guard gun boats harassing our warships to try to get a hot response. Or maybe needling Bibi into something stupid.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Being close to 45 is toxic

    Although I think DeVos might turn the tables - she looks like she is up for some read do-de-doo ideas to 'fix' education.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    read->real

  6. [6] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "since Giuliani is much more familiar with both federal law and the Constitution"
    ???

    Since you seem to be stating this as a fact, I'm guessing you mean relative to Trump?

    Rudy, after all, has as much experience in the federal government as Trump did... and only seems to know about how to violate the Constitution.

    A

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Iran is to 45 what Iraq was to 43.

    Bush 2 (43) was driven by a need for revenge over the attack on his father, and records show he was looking for ways to engage with Iraq before 9/11.

    45 has a different motivation - he needs to bully people and at the nation state level, Iran is the weakest kid on the playground.

    Obviously there is the elementary school playground, like Venezuela and Cuba - but Venezuela is a basket case and nobody wants to own that mess for the next decade. We are going on vacation to Cuba and finally we get to buy their cigars (as a Brit I was allowed to bring in 50 Cubans - which I did with great relish before I became a very proud citizen of both Scotland and the U.S.A).

    In the High School playground there are fewer players. Russia (but Putin is his buddy). China (their economic strength would near bankrupt a lot of 45's Billionaire buddies, plus their ground army could be very much more difficult to beat than the average American thinks). Iran (we probably think we can win a ground war fairly easily, and limit the damages Iran's missiles can do - and most will probably fall locally anyway, so will just be flash/bangs on CNN's 24 hour coverage).

    So Iran it is, if 45 feels the need to win in 2020 as a war President.

  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    delayed response to comment 25 from "You're fired"

    "Your end of the agreement would be to stop with the immature and childish name calling"

    Um, what are you talking about?
    You are spewing "alternate facts".
    I offered you a very specific agreement.
    Those words did not appear in it. You did indeed imagine it if you believe otherwise.
    And if you are referring to me calling you a troll, not only was it NOT part of the agreement for me to stop, I explicitly ruled it out when I made the offer.

    Are we dealing with a reading comprehension issue or is this back to your memory problems?
    If it's the latter, you can always go back a re-read the agreement... the comment did not self-destruct.
    It's still there.

    Do you need me to cut and paste it here?

    A

  9. [9] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    3, 7

    Test firing a missile is not an "aggressive move".
    Out of curiosity, are you repeating a phrase you read somewhere?

    The nuclear deal with Iran does not include a ban on such tests, and the UN Security Council resolution only refers to missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

    Iran is legally entitled to test fire missiles, and we do it all the time too.
    Are our tests "aggressive moves"?

    As for Trump, he may well desire to be a wartime president beyond the ongoing wars he inherited, but going to war requires a legal justification. Your mischaracterization of a missile test as an "aggressive move" sounds like a prelude to a Cheney type sales pitch for another illegal war.
    I would suggest a little more caution.

    "we probably think we can win a ground war fairly easily"

    You mean another cake walk?
    That didn't work out so well in Iraq, and Iran has a much more formidable military.

    In any case, when you said "we probably think", you should probably say "Trump and Netanyahu, maybe a couple of crazy generals, and a bunch of neolibcon think tank types probably think", because most of the experts including those in the military probably do NOT think winning a ground war in Iran would be easy.

    And again, saying such things is unwise.

    For the record, I would be saying the exact same thing if Hillary had won.

    A

  10. [10] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    delayed response to comment 29 from "You're fired"

    We do indeed have more in common with each other than with Trump, but I happen to think we are already dealing with an American oligarchy, and have been for quite some time, and that Obama served them dutifully.

    I don't agree that "it's clear Putin set out to divide the Democratic party".
    Absolutely zero evidence supporting that assertion has been presented. I require facts in order to believe such things, but I recognize that you believe it though.

    Your little "history lesson" about the Democratic Big Tent is "adorable".
    Rather than citing McGovern though, you should really be admitting that Hillary's disastrous loss and the disastrous losses in Congress and at the state level is from where the currently relevant lessons need to be learned. Leftist policies didn't cause any of those losses.

    Right wing corporatism is NOT centrist. And the "far left" hasn't been part of the Democratic Big Tent for decades. Not one single Democrat elected even from the bluest state qualifies as "far left". Bernie is part of the near left, and eight out of ten of his top policy agenda items were supported by the majority of Americans... not just Democrats. That's the definition of centrist.
    Your "established fact" is unsupported nonsense.

    A "lurch to the left" by the Democratic party is required for them to become centrist.
    Democrats becoming Republican lite is what made Trumps victory possible. Hillary losing working class voters, not the "far left", is what made Trumps victory possible.

    If you want to work for unity in your party, Democrats need to recognize that right wing, Wall Street coddling economic policies are not supported by the working class base of the Democratic party, because they are suffering from those policies.

    Just for kicks though, try visiting http://www.wsws.org and take a look at what the actual far left was saying about Bernie.
    It will be a real eye opener.

    A

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ban ban? sounds like a dance where a line of ladies start to kick their legs up high, then stop.

    JL

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    The heart of all the confusion was what to call Donald Trump's Muslim ban.

    There is no confusion.. The Left wants to erroneously call it a Muslim Ban even though it's clear that it's not..

    The only problem with all this was clearly identified by Sarah Palin, years ago: "I just hope the lamestream media won't twist my words by repeatin' 'em verbatim." Oh, wait... that was actually Tina Fey spoofing Palin on Saturday Night Live, but in the spirit of the brave new world of "alternative facts" ushered in by the Trump administration, I'm just going to go ahead and insist that Palin actually said it. Take that, lamestream media!

    Oh com'on CW! It was the Left Wingery who actually DID attack Palin for saying something that Tina Fay said..

    So, don't try and play this off as a response to President Trump.. :D

    The Left Wingery has been lying about Right Wingers for quite a while..

    But now that he's the country's leader, he isn't going to be able to get away with such selective memory loss any more. It's not going to be as easy to toss things down the Orwellian memory hole from the White House -- at least, if the press continues to do their job. We have not always been at war with Eastasia, and Trump's Muslim ban -- ever since he himself introduced the idea to the political landscape -- will always be a Muslim ban, no matter what Sean Spicer tries to call it.

    Even though the facts clearly show that it's not a muslim ban..

    I know, I know... When has the Left ever let FACTS get in the way of political bigotry.. :D

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What does the Trump administration mean by 'extreme vetting' and how does it differ from the vetting process that exists today?

    That's what DHS will work out...

    Odumbo officials have stated for the record that the vetting process was not effective..

    President Trump officials are going to make it effective. And until such time as it is effective, the Trump administration is going to do it's utmost to make sure Americans are safe..

    And the fact that ya'all and the entirety of the Left Wingery has a problem with that is VERY indicative

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Being close to 45 is toxic - he destroys people's credibility and often their careers. The lust for power comes with a big price and Bannon is only adding to the cost. Whether Tillerson likes it or not, he now owns the Muslim ban.

    But... But... But...

    How can this be!! Democrats said they were going to derail Tillerson's nomination and he would NOT be SecState..

    Were ya'all..... WRONG... again???? :D

    Seriously, dood.. Ya'all's credibility with regards to Trump is in the negative..

    But I have to say.. It IS a credit to the level of ya'all's fanaticism that ya'all keep trying.. :D

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll Formerly Known As Asshole

    Do you need me to cut and paste it here?

    No.. We ALL need you to act like a mature adult and follow the agreement that you made..

    But asking a troll jackass like you to act mature and actually follow thru with promises made is nothing more than wishful thinking...

    At least there is one silver lining here.. I have proven beyond any doubt to everyone here who is the Troll and who has the best interests of Weigantia at heart...

    Since you are mentally challenged, I'll spell it out for you.. The former is you and the latter is me...

    Keep spewing yer bile, jackass.. I'll be here to keep setting the record straight.. :D

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    Love trumps hate??

    RAMPAGING, MASKED PROTESTERS DESTROYING BERKELEY CAMPUS, SETTING FIRES, OVER MILO SPEECH
    'No borders, no nations, fuck deportations!'

    https://news.grabien.com/story-masked-protesters-starting-fires-tearing-down-fences-outside-1

    This is ya'all's Democrat Party....

    How proud ya'all must be.. :^/

  17. [17] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Happy New Year, Michale! (Sorry that's a bit late).

  18. [18] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Happy New Year, Michale! (Sorry that's a bit late).

  19. [19] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    And sorry for the inadvertent double post.

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Happy New Year, Michale! (Sorry that's a bit late).

    Holy crap!! A blast from the past!!! :D

    Where ya been!??

    Thank you and I hope you live long and prosper in the New Year... :D

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Imam comes clean about Michigan man's claim that mom died due to travel ban
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/02/imam-comes-clean-about-michigan-mans-claim-that-mom-died-due-to-travel-ban.html

    This is why it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe all the hateful and intolerant rhetoric coming from the Left...

    From bigoted attacks by President Trump supporters to people dying because of President Trump's orders...

    More often than not, it's complete and utter BS....

    Keep that in mind the next time ya'all want to slam the Right for their lies....

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Trump and Iran is just Trump being a typical bully picking on the low hanging fruit of a country so well known for their cowardice that they put it right in the name of the country.

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump and Iran is just Trump being a typical bully picking on the low hanging fruit of a country so well known for their cowardice

    OR....

    Or President Trump is (rightly) taking care of the riff raff before moving onto the REALLY hard problems..

    "We can't just discard a possibility simply because we don't happen to like it.."
    -Martin Sheen, FINAL COUNTDOWN

    :D

    that they put it right in the name of the country.

    Heh

    Now THAT was funny!!! :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/democrats-played-article-1.2961872

    As I have said ad nasuem....

    Democrats are getting played and played BIG TIME...

    Don't come crying to me and don't express "shock" when the GOP creams Democrats in 2018....

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    In 2010, President George Bush was asked what he thought of President Obama's performance so far..

    Keep in mind, this was right after the first of many shellackings that they Democrat Party would endure...

    President Bush said "The job is hard enough without having your predecessor out in public mucking things up."

    President Bush has more integrity in his little pinky nail than FORMER President Odumbo has in his entire body...

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (16)-
    Don't worry.
    I heard Trump has dispatched a team of top scientists to build a time machine so he can send a team of immigration agents back in time to stop the grandparents and great grandparents of the rioters from coming to America (codename: The ICEman Cometh).
    Soon it will be as if it never happened.

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It is possible that Trump already has a time machine.
    It wasn't too long ago that everybody knew Harvey Swartz, and now it's as if he never even existed.

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't worry.
    I heard Trump has dispatched a team of top scientists to build a time machine so he can send a team of immigration agents back in time to stop the grandparents and great grandparents of the rioters from coming to America (codename: The ICEman Cometh).
    Soon it will be as if it never happened.

    Don't tease me.. :D

    It wasn't too long ago that everybody knew Harvey Swartz, and now it's as if he never even existed.

    Same goes for some luser named Hillary Clinton.. Who's she???

    :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:
  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    And ya'all said the wall wouldn't be built.. :D

    No, we said it was pointless. Currently we have low cross border rates, but if 45's policies damage Mexico arbitrarily, then there will be an increase in traffic. Remember most illegals come in on a valid visa and overstay, so the wall won't work.

    We know our engineers an build a wall - China did it hundreds of years ago, and the Romans were building walls before Christ. Those walls did not work either, but we don't expect 45 to actually read and learn from history. He has to go bankrupt himself several times before he figures something out.

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    President Bush said "The job is hard enough without having your predecessor out in public mucking things up."

    Yeah, but Obama wasn't blaming complete cock-ups like the Muslim ban on Bush 2.

    If 45 wants a quiet Obama then he needs to treat him with respect. Impossible for 45 who has the emotional maturity of a 5-year-old however.

    He is your clown, you are responsible for 45's stupidity. Get over it. If you didn't want to be embarrassed on a daily basis, you shouldn't have voted for him.

    Sad!

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone:

    "more aggressive"

    "more" and in increased intensity, not more as in "more of the same"

    I would suggest a little more caution.

    I would suggest reading with a little more nuance (not increased number of nuances, increased understanding).

    "we probably think we can win a ground war fairly easily"

    "we probably" i.e. as a nation it is probably thought that we can roll in like we did in Iraq - if I thought this was true, I'd have said something like "we will win a ground war fairly easily"

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    If 45 wants a quiet Obama then he needs to treat him with respect.

    You mean, like Odumbo treated President Bush with respect??

    You mean like that??

    You see your problem.. You are so blinded by Party slavery, you can't see how utterly irrational and illogical your comments are...

    Odumbo took jabs at President Bush are EVERY juncture.. Yet Bush remained silent and maintained proper decorum..

    THAT's integrity...

    On the flip side, President Trump has said NOTHING about Odumbo and what a crapfest that moron left of this country...

    THAT's ALSO integrity...

    But Odumbo is out there after only 10 days whining and crying that he still isn't POTUS..

    Even DEMOCRATS have stated that it's unseemly....

    We know our engineers an build a wall - China did it hundreds of years ago, and the Romans were building walls before Christ. Those walls did not work either,

    The wall worked for California.. Illegal immigration was cut by 92%....

    but we don't expect 45 to actually read and learn from history.

    The problem is you only accept history that supports your agenda and even THAT history is twisted to fit...

    Party-based "facts"...

    That's all you got.. :D

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    No, we said it was pointless. Currently we have low cross border rates, but if 45's policies damage Mexico arbitrarily, then there will be an increase in traffic. Remember most illegals come in on a valid visa and overstay, so the wall won't work.

    What a load of a crock o' crap...

    Of the 10-20 million of illegals in this country around 416,000 are here because they overstayed their legal visas...

    Under pressure from Congress to improve tracking of foreign visitors, the Department of Homeland Security has produced its first partial estimate of those who overstay their permits to be in the U.S. Out of 45 million U.S. arrivals by air and sea whose tourist or business visas expired in fiscal 2015, the agency estimates that about 416,500 people were still in the country this year.
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/homeland-security-produces-first-estimate-of-foreign-visitors-to-u-s-who-overstay-deadline-to-leave/

    Like I said.. You have NO FACTS... Just ideology-based wishful thinking..

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Boo hoo Michale - is that all you have for the next 4 years - Obama did it so 45 should be allowed to?

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of the 10-20 million of illegals in this country around 416,000 are here because they overstayed their legal visas...

    Alternative facts.

    Given that over 480,000 overstayed their visas last year alone, your 416,000 number is suspect. Plus, how is the wall going to remove people - it is about stopping people.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/illegal-immigrants-who-overstay-visas-almost-never/

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale: How many of the 9/11 hijackers would be stopped by 45's proposed "extreme vetting" of refugees from Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.?

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Boo hoo Michale - is that all you have for the next 4 years - Obama did it so 45 should be allowed to?

    What???

    Alternative facts.

    You said there was no such thing as alternative facts..

    I provided the link.. What do YOU have to support your claim that the "most illegals come in on a valid visa and overstay, so the wall won't work."

    Anything??? Anything at all???

    Plus, how is the wall going to remove people - it is about stopping people.

    Exactly, stopping people.. The entire idea behind the wall is to stop illegal immigration.. It worked quite well in California...

    Why doesn't Moonbeam Brown tear down the wall on the southern border??

    Because Californians would lynch him and then impeach him... In that order...

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale: How many of the 9/11 hijackers would be stopped by 45's proposed "extreme vetting" of refugees from Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.?

    Your question is one based on 20/20 hindsight and, as such, is a bullshit question...

    Put a big jar of M&Ms in your living room... 1000 M&Ms and 10 poison ones that will kill instantly anyone who eats it..

    Would you want those M&Ms out for your family and friends??

    Of course not. What sane person would..

    Yet, you want to go door to door and hand each person some M&Ms knowing full well that one or more is poison...

    Where is the logic in that??

    Surely it makes MORE sense to keep those M&Ms contained until such time as they can be extremely vetted for poison..

    Sure.. It's possible that one or two poison M&Ms might get thru.. But surely that is INFINITELY better than 10 or 20 or more poison M&Ms getting thru...

    President Trump is concerned about the safety of Americans..

    You and the Democrats don't CARE about the safety of Americans...

    It's that simple...

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW, what are you talking about - even 45 isn't saying he is building a wall any longer - he says:

    "a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassible barrier"

    He lied to you again. No wall. Just what we already have with his name on it.

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Girl Scouts came to my door selling cookies - I'm going to report them to the INS and get them deported because I don't know if any of the cookies are poisoned.

    As 45 says, you cant trump 5-year-olds - they might be terrorists.

    This makes as much sense as your M&M argument.

    But your avoidance of the question is noted.

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    No one from the LOVE TRUMPS HATE crowd around here wants to comment on the violence and assaults and the attacks and the destruction committed by "peaceful" and "tolerant" Left Wingery Democrats at Berkeley last night???

    "Gee!! I wonder why that is!!??"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    The Girl Scouts came to my door selling cookies - I'm going to report them to the INS and get them deported because I don't know if any of the cookies are poisoned.

    If there was a known and prevelant history of Girl Scouts poisoning their cookies, then you have an excellent point.

    That illustrates my point perfectly...

    Did you get me any Nutter Butters?? :D

    This makes as much sense as your M&M argument.

    Yer right.. I should have added that there has been a prevalent and proven history of poison M&Ms making it into batches...

    But your avoidance of the question is noted.

    Which question would that be, Sonny Jim?? :D

    Did ya hear they're making a JUMANJI remake?? :D

    "a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassible barrier"

    A wall, by any other name, is still a wall...

    I am happy to see President Trump is able to morph his plans and not stubbornly stick with one plan that obviously hasn't a chance in hell of working..

    He's not a Democrat, after all.. :D

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, I found where you were fed your 416,000 number.

    You're not going to like it.

    It comes from a report on fiscal year 2015 where 480,000 visitors in 2015 overstayed their visa. Some went hom during 2016, so the estimate for just the year 2015 is 416,000 people still in the country today.

    i.e. on one year over 400,000 illegals stayed in the country. Similar numbers with deterioration rates will apply to 2014, 2013, etc.

    The number crossing the Mexican border illegally in 2015 was 150,000.

    So three times as many people come in legally then don't bother to go home as walk across the border. But they tend to be Canadians, and Irish, Germans, etc. i.e. they are the right color.

    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    Even the National Review gets it right, for once.

    (replace (dot) as NR is blocked here)

    http://www (dot ) nationalreview (dot) com/article/424879/visa-overstays-todays-immigration-crisis-mark-krikorian

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    But even if we were to build a wall, and elect a president interested in using it to protect America’s sovereignty, we’d be missing most of the problem — because the majority of new illegal aliens are actually visa overstayers.

    National Review, October 2015

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Wall is a giant waste of money that we taxpayers will have to pay for.

    45 doesn't pay taxes, so he is off the hook. As usual.

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, once we quit the millions coming in illegally, then we can turn our attention to the over-stayers..

    One thing at a time. :D

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    The point is, the wall will happen..

    A wall is PROVEN effective in curbing illegal immigrants...

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, once we quit the millions coming in illegally, then we can turn our attention to the over-stayers..

    Yeah, that is what I always say, once I've got my A in math to an A+ I can start working on my D's in English, History, and French.

    Great plan.

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    A wall is PROVEN effective in curbing illegal immigrants...

    Except for the 3 in 4 that fly over it.

    To quote our new DoE Secretary: "Oops".

    Laughing at 45 is turning out to be the silver lining. The fact that his popularity is in the toilet so I'm laughing with the vast majority of the rest of the country just makes is sweeter.

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, once we quit the millions 1 in 4 coming in illegally hopping the wall with a ladder, then we can turn our attention to the over-stayers..

    You're welcome.

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, once we quit the millions 1 in 4 coming in illegally hopping the wall with a ladder, then we can turn our attention to the over-stayers..

    A ladder???

    That's what we have snipers for!! :D

    The fact that his popularity is in the toilet so I'm laughing with the vast majority of the rest of the country just makes is sweeter.

    53% Job Approval Rating... President Trump has a better Approval Average that FORMER President Odumbo! :D

    OUCH!!!! That's GOTTA hurt!! :D

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    A ladder???

    That's what we have snipers for!! :D

    "How can you shoot women and children!!??"
    "It's easy!! You just don't lead 'em as much!"

    -FULL METAL JACKET

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.studyfinds.org/researchers-fake-news-not-alter-election-results/

    And ANOTHER whiney excuse from the Hysterical Left is debunked..

    Let's face reality, people.. Hillary Clinton was a shitty candidate...

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh this is just TOO rich!! :D

    Schumer And Leadership Team Refuse To Meet With Gorsuch
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/02/schumer-and-leadership-team-refuse-to-meet-with-gorsuch/#ixzz4XZKI3Q1R

    Didn't Democrats attack Republicans for this EXACT same thing???

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat....

  57. [57] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And ANOTHER whiney excuse from the Hysterical Left is debunked..

    Do you bother to read these articles before you post them? This debunked NOTHING!

    But, “for fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads.”

    Where did this determination come from? Also, please remember that in 2011 the GOP went to court and fought for the right to lie in their campaign ads without fear of being held culpable for any damage resulting from their dishonesty....and they won! Yes, they fought to be able to lie to us! So would the fake article have to be as persuasive as 36 honest TV ads or 36 dishonest TV ads?

    And the study ignores the effect of continuously hearing negative things said about a subject has on one's overall opinion of said subject -- even if the negative things are known to be untrue.

    This study's findings raise one bigger question: if people could so easily detect the fake news stories, then why did these people share the stories they knew to be fake? Goebbels would love the use of these "studies"!

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    No one from the LOVE TRUMPS HATE crowd around here wants to comment on the violence and assaults and the attacks and the destruction committed by "peaceful" and "tolerant" Left Wingery Democrats at Berkeley last night???

    Violence is bad. Next.

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Violence is bad. Next.

    And do you condemn the violence from the Right so generically, haphazardly and nonchalantly???

    No you do not.. Hypocrisy still stands...

    Next....

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [59]

    Violence is wrong. If you need someone to explain why that is to you, look elsewhere. There is no difference in Left violence and Right violence, it's just VIOLENCE. You see things only through party filters while claiming that you are the only one that doesn't do that and it is getting tiresome.

    If I say that I disagree with something that Trump does today, defend HIS actions if you can...but DO NOT bring up how someone else did something similar at some point in the past and that you know for a fact that I did not disagree with them at that time! We are discussing HIS actions, not my thoughts on similar actions throughout history.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:
  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone [6]

    Rudy, after all, has as much experience in the federal government as Trump did... and only seems to know about how to violate the Constitution

    Giuliani was a US Attorney for the Southern District of New York in the 80's...and was a good one! It's a shame how he turned out after being mayor.

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words.. You CAN'T condemn hate and violence from the Left Wingery because you FULLY support and condone hate and violence from the Left Wingery..

    No other explanation is possible..

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    If I say that I disagree with something that Trump does today, defend HIS actions if you can...but DO NOT bring up how someone else did something similar at some point in the past and that you know for a fact that I did not disagree with them at that time! We are discussing HIS actions, not my thoughts on similar actions throughout history.

    No, we're not..

    We're discussing ya'all's HYPOCRISY....

    We're discussing ya'all's lack of credibility and moral standing to condemn Trump and Trump supporters..

    THAT is what *I* am discussing..

    But YOU don't want to discuss that because ya'all have NO defense or NO excuse for it..

    So you simply ignore it..

    When ya'all actually have some credibility and moral standing to discuss the issues you WANT to discuss, THEN we can discuss them..

    But there is no sense in having such a discussion with a person who has no moral standing to discuss it and no credibility IN discussing it..

  65. [65] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    In other words.. You CAN'T condemn hate and violence from the Left Wingery because you FULLY support and condone hate and violence from the Left Wingery..

    No other explanation is possible..

    In other words... You CAN'T condemn a man who openly bragged about using his fame in order to sexually assault women because you FULLY support and condone sexually assaulting women...

    No other explanation is possible..

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Man Michale, the lady doth protest too much. Quite crying all over the blog, pull yourself together man.

    On another note, does anybody listen to "The Bugle".

    http://thebuglepodcast.com/

    Catch the latest episode "Bugle 4014 - How Bad Can It Get In A Week?"

    For a belly laugh, tune in about minute 27 (you can play the podcast online and point to minute 27) when they discuss George Orwell then comment on 45's ABC interview when he said that the "World is as angry as it gets".

    LMFAO.

  67. [67] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    15

    Here's the cut and paste to show what an alternate fact type you are-

    From "Our president's crazy" comment 45

    "Since begging for help is on your agenda these days, I'll offer you some.
    I'm still open to giving you a (probably temporary) reprieve.

    Apologize for including me in your false generalizations about everyone here in Weigantia, and stop including me in them going forward, and in return I will promise to only call out your trollery in comments you specifically direct to me.

    That's a fair deal.

    I can't promise to stop calling you a troll though, because I'm an honest person."

    ----

    Did I use too many big words?

    You are insulting me for not honoring an agreement I never offered while failing to abide by the agreement I did offer... talk about being a mature adult.

    Only a troll like you would claim to have the interests of Weigantia at heart and then lie about something that can be proven false by the record in Weigantia.

    But, hey.
    Way to go.
    You've proven yourself to be the troll, and a liar several times over.
    Setting the record straight indeed.

    Of course, I'm sure you also realize that by breaking the agreement you are claiming the right to lie to us?

    How do you expect everyone here to feel about that?

    A

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, no surprise, Glaswegians think 45 is a bampot*

    http://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/10-signs-spotted-anti-trump-12530877

    * bampot: Noun. (plural bampots) (Scotland, slang, pejorative) Id!ot; an objectionable and foolish person.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well at least after Benghazi we can expect the Republicans to hold some congressional hearing to get to the bottom of the fiasco in Yemen.

    I can't wait until they call 45 and his minions to the floor to explain why they went in with such poor intelligence.

    What happened at the consulate in Libya was an unexpected event. The Yemen raid was an American plan that had been rejected by the Obama administration and then approved by Trump despite the lack of intelligence that might have prevented all the deaths that occurred, including a Navy SEAL and several children.

    What ... they are giving him a free ride? Well at least rank and file Republicans aren't that callous towards our military, right? Right?

  70. [70] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    32

    OK... I see what you're saying...

    ... but "more aggressive moves" with "more" meaning increased intensity still leaves the missile test as a supposedly less intense but still aggressive move... unless I need more caffeine or sleep or something.

    The point I was trying to make, was that with Spicer making false claims about Iran attacking an American ship (and then being corrected by a journalist saying it was a Saudi ship... and not correcting that it wasn't Iran at all but rather (possibly) the Houthis in Yemen)... and the Defense Secretary saying "Iran is on notice"...

    ... a lighthearted discussion of Trump satisfying his urge to bully someone by going to war with Iran after mentioning legal missile tests being portrayed by Trumplings as cause for alarm has the potential for feeding the flames of a war we really don't need.

    In other words, it's the timing and the context of your comment, not the content.
    I didn't think you were cheerleading for war.

    And I also think you're right about the widespread ignorance... which is another reason I worry that Trump could take us to war using bogus claims.

    A

  71. [71] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    68

    I fully agree that the execution and decision making about the raid in Yemen should be questioned, and the disregard for the safety of our soldiers and civilians should be condemned.

    It seems like a very bad precedent to set.

    A

  72. [72] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    62

    Ah.
    Thanks for the info.

    You seem to be saying you only take issue with his actions after being mayor though... so if his record as a US Attorney is comparable to his actions as mayor, I would have to disagree because I think he was a horrible mayor.

    Truth be told, I dislike him so much, I don't think I could stomach researching his past.

    A

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [69] - I'll try to be less ambiguous - it seemed obvious to me because I wrote it, so the context was in my head.

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone

    I don't live in NYC so my views of him as the mayor are only based on the snippets that I read about him. Most of it was his handling of the 9/11 attack and the work he did on keeping that city moving forward through so much pain and sadness.

    I know as the AG of Southern District of NY he took on the mafia's 5 Families. He also led prosecutions resulting in the convictions of Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. He also focused on prosecuting drug dealers, organized crime, and corruption in government. He amassed a record of 4,152 convictions and 25 reversals.

    I don't remember him making the crazy comments until after he left the mayor's office, so that is my frame of reference.

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    How likely are you to die from a terrorist attack or killed by an illegal immigrant?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words... You CAN'T condemn a man who openly bragged about using his fame in order to sexually assault women because you FULLY support and condone sexually assaulting women...

    Actually, I did condemn President Trump for that. So, as usual, your argument fails..

    How likely are you to die from a terrorist attack or killed by an illegal immigrant?

    How likely was someone in New York City to die in a terrorist attack on the morning of Sep 11, 2001??

    You people always quote odds as if they have meaning...

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    You know how I always know when YOU know you have lost an argument???

    Man Michale, the lady doth protest too much. Quite crying all over the blog, pull yourself together man.

    When you post ridiculous comments about me.. :D

    Thank you.. I accept your concession.. :D

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll Formerly Known As Asshole

    Thank you for proving my point as to who is really the Troll here...

    Only a true Internet Troll would say one thing and then in the very next comment, say something completely opposite..

    The textbook definition of an Internet Troll...

    You sound EXACTLY like Hillary Clinton.. How proud you must be :D

    Keep it coming, jackass... I can do this all day! :D

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    The Party of Outrage
    Democrats can barely keep up with their problems with Trump, raising some to wonder if their perpetual opposition is undermining a more focused message.

    In the frenzied opening days of the rebellious Trump era, top leaders in the Democratic Party have taken a posture of relentless, immovable, caustic opposition – assailing the commander in chief at every turn and often employing extreme rhetoric to punctuate its impact. It is a cold-blooded approach that's required for this precarious moment, they say, given the severe changes Trump is attempting on everything from how the U.S. should deliver health care to who should be allowed to become an American citizen.

    But there's a risk in outright, perpetual obstruction as well and it's simmering below the surface in conversations between Democratic lawmakers, leaders and strategists as the party debates the most effective path forward: If Democrats protest everything with hair-on-fire outrage, will anything end up sticking with the American public beyond their infinite indignity? If they cry wolf every 12 hours, will the effect of their urgency wane over time? Instead of presenting an alternative vision, will they end up looking simply like a party of outrage?
    http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-02/democrats-permanent-outrage-at-donald-trump

    DING, DING, DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER....

    Democrats are being played by President Trump and they are dancing to his tune like the leader-less and rudder-less morons they are!! :D

    Patriotic Americans are just shaking their heads and saying, "Jeeezus, what are Democrats all in a snit about THIS time!!"

    But, by all means, Dims.. Keep it up.. You will prove Mopshell's prediction to be dead on ballz accurate.. A GOP filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, an overwhelming GOP majority in the House and a GOP in the White House for the next 50 years.. :D

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    "Whether intended or accidental, Trump's barrage of initiatives is thus far, by sheer volume and audacity, having the effect of confusing and overwhelming his opponents."
    -Benjamin Ginsberg, Political Scientist, Johns Hopkins University

    Let's face reality people... President Trump's rise to power is literally LITTERED with ignorant politicians who thought they knew how to handle the Trump phenomena..

    The problem Democrats have is that they are reacting to President Trump as if he was a President Romney or a President Jeb... And President Trump is wiping the floor with them... :D

    Democrats simply have no rational or cognizant plan.. They are simply throwing everything against the wall that is President Trump and hope something sticks..

    Meanwhile, President Trump's approval numbers continue to rise....

    That's what ya'all simply don't get.. The more Dims and the LameStreamMedia hysterically attack President Trump, the more patriotic Americans approve of President Trump's job performance...

    As I have said before and will likely say again a LOT in the next 8 years..

    The Left is it's own worst enemy...

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words... You CAN'T condemn a man who openly bragged about using his fame in order to sexually assault women because you FULLY support and condone sexually assaulting women...

    In other words, you simply CANNOT address the fact of ya'all's hypocrisy and ya'all's lack of credibility so you create ANOTHER straw-man argument (that is easily proven false) and ignore the REAL argument....

    And ya'all wonder why ya'all can never win an argument here... :D

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Harry Reid’s gift to the GOP
    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/harry-reid-gift-gop-article-1.2962921

    Yep...

    I said at the time that Reid's moronic play will come back to bite the Democrats on the ass.. At the time, the vast majority of Weigantia, of course, said I was wrong and it will be great for the Democrats and great for the country...

    Well, ya'all were half right.. It IS great for the country, as President Trump can populate his cabinet and add two, possibly THREE seats to the SCOTUS and Democrats are powerless to do ANYTHING but squeal and whine and cry...

    So, what ya think?? Was Reid's moronic move great for the Democrat Party?? :D

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    Democrats are being played by President Trump and they are dancing to his tune like the leader-less and rudder-less morons they are!! :D

    I mean, seriously, people.. Look at the facts..

    President Trump tweets that he is going to the bathroom now..

    The Left Wingery erupts.. Soros-funded protests "spring up" and professional signs are created, "HOW DARE HE!!!!!" and "HITLER WENT TO THE BATHROOM TOO!!!!" etc etc etc...

    And meanwhile more and more Americans are becoming patriotic Americans and are saying, "What the frak are these morons all about now!??? What a bunch of lusers! GET A JOB, MORONS!!!"...

    And in 2018, history repeats itself.. 2018 is like 2010, 2020 is like 2012 and 2022 is like 2014...

    All favoring the GOP....

    The Left has a CHANCE.. a small window to turn the tide of inexorable future history..

    Will the Democrat Party seize the chance NOT to become totally and completely politically irrelevant??

    I honestly doubt it...

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all know that I am right...

    At least, the logical & rational side of yer brains know that I am right...

    But it's the hysterical Party slave side of yer brains that are firmly in control....

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    TRUMP WARNS ISRAEL: Stop Announcing New Settlements
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Trump-warns-Israel-Stop-announcing-new-settlements-480446

    I completely, whole-heartedly and unequivocally DISAGREE with President Trump on this..

    Israel should continue to scream about new settlements from the highest heavens..

    Israel is giving notice to the Palestinians that terrorism and support of terrorism will not stop Israel from doing what is legally within their right to do...

    "Atrocity and terror are not political weapons, and to those who would use them, your day is over."
    -President James Marshall

  86. [86] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    77

    I just showed you were lying repeatedly, and you respond with more false accusations using unsupported assertion?

    We all know you lie with ease, but a troll bragging about being able to do it all day isn't going to impress anyone.

    Aren't you at least going to explain how after apologizing to me for lying about me, you somehow managed to interpret our deal to mean the opposite of what the words actually said?

    I mean, was it wishful thinking?

    Your frustration is obvious since you're back to using vulgarity, and I hate to risk adding to it, but since you mentioned it, I have to ask. Which textbook are you using for your definitions? Is it one you held on to after almost graduating from Starfleet Academy?

    A

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll Formerly Known As Asshole

    I just showed you were lying repeatedly, and you respond with more false accusations using unsupported assertion?

    You just posted more fantasy claims and expect people to buy into it..

    And ya know what's funny? They probably will because Party loyalty is more important than anything else. This much has been proven beyond any doubt..

    We all know you lie with ease, but a troll bragging about being able to do it all day isn't going to impress anyone.

    And yet, you try on a daily basis.. :D

    Aren't you at least going to explain how after apologizing to me for lying about me, you somehow managed to interpret our deal to mean the opposite of what the words actually said?

    As I have aptly proven beyond any doubt, trying to appease an Internet Troll is like trying to appease a terrorist. Because they keep moving the goal posts to justify their terrorism/trolling.. For the goal of a terrorist/troll is NOT logic or rational discourse.. The goal is the terrorism/trolling itself...

    Your frustration is obvious since you're back to using vulgarity, and I hate to risk adding to it, but since you mentioned it, I have to ask. Which textbook are you using for your definitions? Is it one you held on to after almost graduating from Starfleet Academy?

    I fight Internet Trolls in the manner that is most effective..

    If you don't LIKE being called a jackass and an asshole, quit ACTING like an asshole and a jackass...

    It's not rocket science... Duh.....

  88. [88] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    73

    Well, I have a slight bias against drug warriors knowing the selective nature of their prosecutions and the massive harm they've caused in their failed approach to a public health issue.

    Again, I don't have the stomach to research it, but based on his horrible policies as mayor and his record since, I'd also bet the same selective approach is evident in his prosecutions (or rather lack thereof) of Wall Street and of government corruption.

    As for 9/11, his support for the disastrous policies and ongoing horrors we face by those in both parties using that tragedy to justify them more than offsets anything positive he may have done in the immediate aftermath.

    You mentioned organized crime... well, I consider his and his collaborators actions to be exactly that.

    A

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll Formerly Known As Asshole

    Practically EVERYONE here has expressed an interest in you ceasing your name-calling.. It was explicitly stated that you started it and, while I do not absolve myself of the responsibility for it's continuation, I think it's been aptly proven beyond any doubt that all it will take is for you to cease your personal attacks and it will all go away...

    Why not give it a try?? Are you so married to your Trolling that you simply can't stop being an asshole??

    I mean, it's not as if I asking for the world here.. I am simply asking you to live up to your progressive ideals of tolerance...

    If you can't do it, then you are obviously nothing but a hateful and hurtful hypocrite, no better than the Right Wingers you castigate...

  90. [90] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    86

    I quoted the agreement that got you to apologize for lying about me and that anybody can verify with two clicks without leaving this site and you call it fantasy?

    And then you go back to ranting about party loyalty when this whole episode is based on you lying by including me in false generalizations about party loyalty?
    You are really losing it.

    And then more empty assertion?

    And then you compare my actions to terrorism for "moving the goal posts" when that's exactly what you were trying to do?
    Wow.
    The projection is typical, but such desperation is a new low even for you.

    But wait.
    I got you to apologize for lying about me, documented a whole series of further lies you made, have you frothing at the mouth spewing bile, and you think you're "fighting me effectively"?

    And you think I'm not enjoying it?

    A

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    Sorry, guys.. I tried...

    But Asshole still insists on being an asshole..

    Troll, Formerly Known As Asshole..

    And you think I'm not enjoying it?

    Of course you are enjoying it. That's what Trolls like you enjoy.. Attacking people, hurting people, hating people. It's how assholes like you get off... You're the kind of guy who attacks and harasses people and then laugh your ass off when they commit suicide...

    In other words, you are not a good person. You are EXACTLY as your characterize President Trump and all of the Right Wingery...

    Yea, you enjoy it.. Sick people like you always enjoy hurting others....

  92. [92] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    88, 90

    Your lying about me "started it".
    Your continued lying about me after I offered you a deal and you broke it guarantees it will continue.

    Trollery is your bread and butter.
    I know you won't stop.
    Honest debate is beyond you.
    But if by some miracle you do give it up, I will stop calling you a troll.

    Again, it would be dishonest of me to address you otherwise unless you stop.

    And, for the record, progressive ideals are beyond you.
    But it's really funny that a liar like you would make a plea to morality.

    At least you finally apologized to everybody here, even if it's for the wrong reason.

    A

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll, Formerly Known As Asshole

    Troll
    88, 90

    Your lying about me "started it".

    Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaa

    Your continued lying about me after I offered you a deal and you broke it guarantees it will continue.

    You broke the deal.. This is well documented..

    But the fact is, I have made an effort for the sake of this forum, to lay the matter to rest..

    But you, because you are a sick fuck and love to attack people and hurt people, you simply can't let it go..

    Haters have to hate and you are a hater..

    And, for the record, progressive ideals are beyond you.

    I never claimed that I was a progressive.. But, apparently, progressive ideals are beyond you because you ignore all of them in your quest to hate and hurt... So, in essence YOU lied first when you claimed to be a progressive...

    It's obvious to all...

    At least you finally apologized to everybody here, even if it's for the wrong reason.

    Actually, it's for the exact reason..

    I apologized to everyone here because I thought you were actually somewhat of a person who could be reasoned with and who would put the needs of the others before their own selfish desire to hurt and attack...

    Yes, in that I was wrong and I do apologize to everyone here that I was unable to get this jerk-off asshole to quite being a jerk-off asshole...

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    Americans need to get used to the fact Donald Trump was elected as president, US writer Bret Easton Ellis has said.

    The American Psycho author hit out at celebrity culture for their continued protests at Mr Trump’s presidency and said there had been an “overreaction” to the rise of the Republican businessman.

    Speaking as he launched his art exhibition in central London alongside multimedia artist Alex Israel, Bret said: “I didn’t vote Trump, I’m just saying the hysteria is bothering me a lot more than the reality of what he’s doing.
    http://www.irishnews.com/magazine/2017/02/02/news/bret-easton-ellis-trump-is-president-get-over-it-917938/

    Like I said.. The Left Wingery is way WAY WAY overreaching and over-playing their hand..

    They better get smarter faster or else President Trump's popularity is going to sky rocket even more than it already is... :D

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    "President Trump is NOT going to be able to bring back any manufacturing jobs!!!"
    -Hysterical Left Wingery

    U.S. Gained 5,000 Manufacturing Jobs in January, Lost 10,000 Government Jobs
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/us-gained-5000-manufacturing-jobs-january-lost-10000-government-jobs

    Does the Left *EVER* get tired of being wrong!?? :D

    President Trump

    Making America Great Again!! :D

  96. [96] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    92

    Again you act as if lying is no big deal.
    Pathetic.
    And you really are a master of projection (not a compliment).

    And, no... you broke the deal with lying generalizations after agreeing to exclude me from them.
    If you could document otherwise, you would.

    I am also constrained to point out that if you had abided by the deal, and ceased addressing me directly, your problems would have been over.
    (see comment 67 in case you've forgotten the deal again).

    It really was a fair deal.

    I know you're in the habit of lying by making false generalizations, and that bad habits are hard to break.
    But if you want to try again, I will generously give you another shot.

    If you really care about the good people here, rather than your typical knee-jerk reaction, think about it for a while. Read the deal again (again, see comment 67), and recognize that it puts restrictions on both of us.

    All you have to do is stop lying about me with your factually inaccurate "ya'all" nonsense, and don't address me directly, and I will go back to ignoring you until the next fund drive (when CW asks us to engage).

    It's win-win-win.

    A

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll, Formerly Known As Asshole

    And, no... you broke the deal with lying generalizations after agreeing to exclude me from them.
    If you could document otherwise, you would.

    I have documented it all.. But, per usual, you ignore all the facts just to continue your trolling...

    And, as I have aptly proven, I am not the only one who has pointed it out...

    You're in the wrong here, but you can't concede that because Trolls never admit that they are wrong..

    It really was a fair deal.

    I am sure YOU think it is.. But, being that you are an asshole that just likes to attack people, what YOU think is not relevant to the conversation..

    All you have to do is stop lying about me with your factually inaccurate "ya'all" nonsense, and don't address me directly, and I will go back to ignoring you until the next fund drive (when CW asks us to engage).

    Yea, you said that the last time.. And you were proven to be a total shit liar..

    You have absolutely NO credibility here whatsoever...

    And, once again, I am not the only one who has stated so...

    Your exposed for the hater liar you are... :D

    But keep it up... It amuses me to embarrass you every time you comment... JACKASS :D

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll, Formerly Known As Asshole

    All you have to do is stop lying about me with your factually inaccurate "ya'all" nonsense, and don't address me directly, and I will go back to ignoring you until the next fund drive (when CW asks us to engage).

    And all YOU have to do is stop with the personal attacks against CW and any other person who disagrees with you and I will be content to let you fade into oblivion where you belong..

    But you CAN'T stop the personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you because they define who you are..

    A pathetic little worm of a little boy who can't handle how wrong he is about everything...

    So, since you can't stop being a pathetic little worm and stop the personal attacks against everyone who disagrees with you, the only recourse I have is to point out what a pathetic little worm you are every time you make a such personal attacks...

    You wanted a war and I am happy to oblige you.. The temporary pain it causes here will be well worth the peace we enjoy when yer pathetic ass is gone..

  99. [99] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    96

    Back to the fun then.

    So, let me ask you some questions.

    Do you really think your endless trollery and lying don't constitute "attacks" on everybody here, not to mention common decency?

    Are you really that oblivious?

    Where is this supposed "documentation" you claim to have made?
    Where is this "proof"?
    Everybody here knows you will quote relevant comments when it suits your needs... why can't you do it to back up your lies about me?

    You probably won't be able to grasp this notion, but do you really think progressive ideals include letting people lie without challenging them?

    Since you're so "hurt" by my comments, how is it that you maintain the double standard when saying far worse about me and everyone else here?
    Pity party, table of one, right this way.

    Well, gotta run.
    I have to go nurse my embarrassment at having you apologize for lying about me.
    How will I ever face the day?

    A

  100. [100] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    98

    Again.
    No documentation to back up your lies.

    I think everybody can see the pattern by now.

    A

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll, Formerly Known As Asshole..

    Troll
    96

    Back to the fun then.

    I know you are saying something because I see words on the screen but it's all an intelligible mess because I don't speak LITTLE BITCH.... :D

    Well, gotta run.

    Run away!!! Run away!!!

    Figures.. Yer get yer little ass spanked and you run away....

    Par for the course for a little bit.. :D

    How will I ever face the day?

    The same way you always do.. Whining and crying and attacking anyone who disagrees with you...

    A sad pathetic existence...

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll, Formerly known as asshole

    No documentation to back up your lies.

    I think everybody can see the pattern by now.

    Yep, your pattern is clear.. Nothing but whining and crying... No facts to back up anything..

    Yep, everyone can, indeed, see the pattern...

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You people always quote odds as if they have meaning...

    You mean how the odds of children contracting polio if they were vaccinated dropped to nearly zero resulted in the worldwide use of vaccines for children?

    Or how the odds of a person surviving a car crash greatly increased with the use of seat belts and air bags resulted in car companies including them in their designs?

    But for people who prefer living in their fear-based bubbles, odds only have meaning if they support your preconceived notions!

  104. [104] 
    michale wrote:

    You mean how the odds of children contracting polio if they were vaccinated dropped to nearly zero resulted in the worldwide use of vaccines for children?

    Exactly..

    What does THAT have to do with being the victim of a terrorist attack??

    Answer: Nothing..

    Ya'all just spew odds as if they have meaning...

    Thank you for proving my point..

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    Forget comment #103...

    Uncalled for.. My apologies..

  106. [106] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    100, 101

    Yes, your apology for lying about me was a real spanking.

    I see you still can't substantiate your invented claims.
    I was hoping you would attempt to back up your fabrications so I could laugh at your "evidence", but you wimped out as usual.

    It's pretty funny that you whine about people having a life outside this little bubble though.
    Jealousy is so unbecoming.

    And then you lash out in a science denying temper tantrum at Listen and have to apologize again.

    You're on a regular apology tour.

    It's about time you recognized all your finger pointing (or was it finger painting) was just projection... a better description of you would be hard to find.

    A

Comments for this article are closed.