In other words. Drone strikes inside US soil. Like I said.


Yes yes bias. Blah blah. Nearly every link posted here including all the click baity drifter nonsense contains bias because that's how media is now. You pulled the both parties do it card in another thread recently. Does that mean you will be doing this for all links mads or just the liberal biased ones?

 

Come on my liberal friend, be honest about this.

 

I gave a bit of evidence that shows the clear irresponsible "journalism" by MSNBC, yet people claim that FOX News is not a "real news" organization (this even came out of the current administration).  I'm simply putting the information out there and letting others (hopefully) discover the truth themselves.

 

When it comes to blogs, there is sometimes truth in what they write, but more often than not it's opinion, and that goes for right and left wing blogs.

 

As far as the drone strikes on U.S. soil, let's discuss what Dr. Carson really talked about rather than imply that he wants to kill people on U.S. soil with drones.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

There are 17 candidates in the GOP field. According to this article, they identify seven candidates as being on the record against birthright citizenship. Yes, I know, it's MSNBC, but who better to hold them against than their own reporting? Seven of seventeen is not 51%. If you look at Marco Rubio's quote, who MSNBC lists as against ending birthright citizenship, he seems to be taking the position that others in this forum have--legislate around the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship. I'll go ahead and give MSNBC the benefit of the doubt and throw him into the "end birthright citizenship" crowd.

 

That means that as of three days ago, MSNBC had identified Trump, Paul, Santorum, Graham, Christie, Jindal and Walker as against birthright citizenship, and I've thrown Rubio in there to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's still only eight of seventeen, or 47%. If one more candidate has since come out against birthright citizenship, their claim is correct, and three days is a long time in politics, but as recently as August 18th, one of the "facts" they cited in an article dated August 19th was incorrect by their own measure.

 

So my question to you is, was the article by MSNBC that was linked earlier and I quoted accurate or responsible journalism?

 

Also, I disagree with you regarding including Marco Rubio based on that article.  I don't see him wanting to "legislate around the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship".  I see his comment being about addressing the illegal immigration issue.

 

Here is his quote from the article.

 

”I’m not in favor repealing the 14th Amendment, but I am open to exploring ways of not allowing people who are coming here deliberately for that purpose to acquire citizenship,” Rubio said on Tuesday.

 

Legislating "around the 14th Amendment" is not the same as "not allowing people who are coming here deliberately for that purpose".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Come on my liberal friend, be honest about this.


I gave a bit of evidence that shows the clear irresponsible "journalism" by MSNBC, yet people claim that FOX News is not a "real news" organization (this even came out of the current administration). I'm simply putting the information out there and letting others (hopefully) discover the truth themselves.


When it comes to blogs, there is sometimes truth in what they write, but more often than not it's opinion, and that goes for right and left wing blogs.


As far as the drone strikes on U.S. soil, let's discuss what Dr. Carson really talked about rather than imply that he wants to kill people on U.S. soil with drones.

I'm not saying he wants to kill people. I'm saying he's at the least saying drone strikes on soil. I don't care whether it's for tunnels or to kill people. No thanks to drones firing in our own country.


I'm also able to read an article and pars the biased points. The point of the link was for the quote. I probably should have posted the source not the first link I found after reading a cnn blurb on it this morning.

---

So my question to you is, was the article by MSNBC that was linked earlier and I quoted accurate or responsible journalism?

 

Also, I disagree with you regarding including Marco Rubio based on that article.  I don't see him wanting to "legislate around the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship".  I see his comment being about addressing the illegal immigration issue.

The article linked and quoted is a slanted piece designed to play to its base. I've seen the same or worse from MSNBC, and I've seen the same or worse from other equally-"reputable" news outlets, including three-letter networks. It throws lots of opinion in between the facts, which certainly doesn't make it inaccurate, but it does make it irresponsible journalism, which is pretty much par for the course these days where Americans would rather be told what they think than have the facts presented and come to their own conclusions.

 

I misread Rubio's comment initially and retract my placement of him into the anti-birthright category based upon that quote. His views on the topic are actually pretty well in line with mine, perhaps even slightly more moderate depending on what he elaborates that out as. I think it's only a matter of time before a few more candidates (potentially Carson, Perry and/or Huckabee) come out against birthright citizenship, but MSNBC's article claiming that over half the field was against it was, by their own reporting, inaccurate when it ran.

---

I'm not saying he wants to kill people. I'm saying he's at the least saying drone strikes on soil. I don't care whether it's for tunnels or to kill people. No thanks to drones firing in our own country.


I'm also able to read an article and pars the biased points. The point of the link was for the quote. I probably should have posted the source not the first link I found after reading a cnn blurb on it this morning.

 

Do you have any idea how many "drone strikes" or "bombings" take place on our soil almost on a daily basis?

 

I would just like for people to actually research and find out the truth for themselves rather than rely on a news story alone.  When someone brings up in a debate FOX News, I know that more times than not the person is not fully informed.  Yes media outlets are biased, but I would challenge anyone to find a story put out by FOX News that is blatantly false and misleading much like the one that I highlighted.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Do you have any idea how many "drone strikes" or "bombings" take place on our soil almost on a daily basis?


I would just like for people to actually research and find out the truth for themselves rather than rely on a news story alone. When someone brings up in a debate FOX News, I know that more times than not the person is not fully informed. Yes media outlets are biased, but I would challenge anyone to find a story put out by FOX News that is blatantly false and misleading much like the one that I highlighted.

I can't tell if you are just playing a game or not.


I am unaware of drone strikes on US soil. Are they happening 10/10 would be mad.


I am very much against them and think its relevant that a top candidate for President seems to be OK with them.


Are you OK with drone strikes on US soil?


As for your fox comment. That's funny that you think you won't find similar or worse. I'm sure someone will be more than happy to take up that "challenge".

---

Do you have any idea how many "drone strikes" or "bombings" take place on our soil almost on a daily basis?

Can you cite an article showing that the US is bombing itself multiple times per day?

---

The article linked and quoted is a slanted piece designed to play to its base. I've seen the same or worse from MSNBC, and I've seen the same or worse from other equally-"reputable" news outlets, including three-letter networks. It throws lots of opinion in between the facts, which certainly doesn't make it inaccurate, but it does make it irresponsible journalism, which is pretty much par for the course these days where Americans would rather be told what they think than have the facts presented and come to their own conclusions.

 

I misread Rubio's comment initially and retract my placement of him into the anti-birthright category based upon that quote. His views on the topic are actually pretty well in line with mine, perhaps even slightly more moderate depending on what he elaborates that out as. I think it's only a matter of time before a few more candidates (potentially Carson, Perry and/or Huckabee) come out against birthright citizenship, but MSNBC's article claiming that over half the field was against it was, by their own reporting, inaccurate when it ran.

 

I appreciate your honesty regarding your thoughts regarding Rubio's comments.

 

What I challenge the "regulars" that contribute to this forum to do is to really analyse what is reported and do the research.  I personally was awoken to how really bad the media bias is, and how it affects the points of view of voters after reading a couple of books.  I see it all the time and encounter it daily when I interact with people.

 

I am curious though.  Why do you think that Carson, Perry and/or Huckabee would come out as being against birthright citizenship?  From what I know and have seen of those candidates, there is really nothing that leads me to come to this conclusion.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I appreciate your honesty regarding your thoughts regarding Rubio's comments.

 

What I challenge the "regulars" that contribute to this forum to do is to really analyse what is reported and do the research.  I personally was awoken to how really bad the media bias is, and how it affects the points of view of voters after reading a couple of books.  I see it all the time and encounter it daily when I interact with people.

 

I am curious though.  Why do you think that Carson, Perry and/or Huckabee would come out as being against birthright citizenship?  From what I know and have seen of those candidates, there is really nothing that leads me to come to this conclusion.

I spent most of college in journalism classes. I learned long ago that most media outlets have become one of three things:

1. Liberal rags (MSNBC)

2. Conservative rags (FOX News)

3. Tabloids (CNN, ABC post-Gibson)

 

There are very few unbiased, reputable media outlets left out there. Amazingly enough, I've found that al-Jazeera America actually stays pretty close to the center. They do swing left from time and time (and almost never right), but they're better than any of the mainstream cable networks by far.

 

My logic on all three is essentially that they need to keep their names out there. Carson's motivation would simply be to throw another firmly right-wing view out there on a key issue as he continues to build up steam and position himself as a political outsider who isn't so far outside as to be unelectable (as I expect Cruz will ultimately prove to be). For Perry and Huckabee, the motive would simply be desperation. Their campaigns are on life support, so keeping their names out there by any means necessary is critical. It may already be too late for them coming out as anti-birthright to make much of a difference now that well over half the Republican field has stated their position one way or another. But really, though, any more moderate position wouldn't get them any press at this point.

---

I can't tell if you are just playing a game or not.


I am unaware of drone strikes on US soil. Are they happening 10/10 would be mad.


I am very much against them and think its relevant that a top candidate for President seems to be OK with them.


Are you OK with drone strikes on US soil?


As for your fox comment. That's funny that you think you won't find similar or worse. I'm sure someone will be more than happy to take up that "challenge".

 

Drone strikes and/or bombings on our soil happen every day... in target zones.  Testing is done on designated target ranges.

 

I would like to see some of the testing targets be known caves or areas that are used for not only drug trafficking, but also illegal immigration.  After all, doing military testing on our own soil is our right.  When word starts to get around in the illegal circles of those wanting to cross our boarders illegally that the military bombs and/or strafes the area, they might think twice about crossing over.

 

You solve two problems.  You give the military training, and you slow the flow of illegal immigration.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Drone strikes and/or bombings on our soil happen every day... in target zones.  Testing is done on designated target ranges.

Come on now, that's just a little different than what you originally implied

---

Come on now, that's just a little different than what you originally implied

 

Words mean a lot don't they?   :yes:

 

However, is it not out of the question to make said bombing ranges or target ranges right along the border?  What would stop us from doing so?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Words mean a lot don't they? :yes:


However, is it not out of the question to make said bombing ranges or target ranges right along the border? What would stop us from doing so?

Yes and you chose your words poorly. Misleading people as you accuse the article of doing.


The difference being testing is done on controled sites by either the military or the defense contractor. These sites would not be under their control and if they were would not need a drone strike.


They would need to physically clear out the tunnels with personal or risk killing migrants. Now that they are inside the tunnels which is cheaper firing and very expensive rocket or just collapsing it from the inside?


This seems like common sense.

---

Yes and you chose your words poorly. Misleading people as you accuse the article of doing.


The difference being testing is done on controled sites by either the military or the defense contractor. These sites would not be under their control and if they were would not need a drone strike.


They would need to physically clear out the tunnels with personal or risk killing migrants. Now that they are inside the tunnels which is cheaper firing and very expensive rocket or just collapsing it from the inside?


This seems like common sense.

 

Not sure what you mean by me choosing my words poorly.  How did I mislead anyone?

 

So can a site that is along the border be "controlled"?  Is it really up to us to be sure that those here illegally either smuggling drugs or crossing the border illegally are not hiding in caves or tunnels?  There is a site here in Florida that is a bombing range that is commonly used by our military to conduct practice.  There is a fence and signs all around it warning of the danger.  If someone is determined to wander into the area and get's themselves killed, well, they have been warned.  Could the same thing not be done along the border?

 

If some ILLEGAL immigrants get killed in such a scenario, then perhaps it would send a message.  We are not specifically targeting individuals, we are conducting military training.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Words mean a lot don't they?   :yes:

 

However, is it not out of the question to make said bombing ranges or target ranges right along the border?  What would stop us from doing so?

The farmers and ranchers that own land near and abutting the border, the Native Americans who have at least one reservation right along it, and the tens of thousands of ATVers who visit the Imperial Dunes every year, for starters.

---

The farmers and ranchers that own land near and abutting the border, the Native Americans who have at least one reservation right along it, and the tens of thousands of ATVers who visit the Imperial Dunes every year, for starters.

 

Ask those very people if they are willing to give up an area for national security and see what they say.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Ask those very people if they are willing to give up an area for national security and see what they say.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15...66636.html

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/kgun9/news/F...29491.html

http://www.newsweek.com/texas-border-cla...ence-86193

http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/20...ean-for-t/

 

I'm going to go out on a really long limb here and say, "No."

---

The farmers and ranchers that own land near and abutting the border, the Native Americans who have at least one reservation right along it, and the tens of thousands of ATVers who visit the Imperial Dunes every year, for starters.

 

 

Ask those very people if they are willing to give up an area for national security and see what they say.

 

This is an older article, but illustrates the problem there.  Please explain to me how 16 illegal immigrants can sue a rancher that owns property next to the border.  This rancher has to pay legal fees in order to defend himself.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Not sure what you mean by me choosing my words poorly. How did I mislead anyone?


So can a site that is along the border be "controlled"? Is it really up to us to be sure that those here illegally either smuggling drugs or crossing the border illegally are not hiding in caves or tunnels? There is a site here in Florida that is a bombing range that is commonly used by our military to conduct practice. There is a fence and signs all around it warning of the danger. If someone is determined to wander into the area and get's themselves killed, well, they have been warned. Could the same thing not be done along the border?


If some ILLEGAL immigrants get killed in such a scenario, then perhaps it would send a message. We are not specifically targeting individuals, we are conducting military training.

As TJ pointed out the words you used did not imply testing. Hence misleading.


To the rest. Just wow.


Yeah who cares if people get killed, its just collateral damage. Some lives just don't matter at all I guess.

---

This is an older article, but illustrates the problem there.  Please explain to me how 16 illegal immigrants can sue a rancher that owns property next to the border.  This rancher has to pay legal fees in order to defend himself.

I don't see how that would be any different than a homeowner walking out to the edge of his property and holding vandals/trespassers at gunpoint until the police arrived. The trespassers don't get to sue you because you turned them over to the cops, so the simple act of ordering them to stay put while the Border Patrol worked their way over wouldn't have been a civil rights violation of any kind.

 

That said, if he actually did threaten to shoot anyone that tried to leave the scene, he's overstepped his bounds and most likely committed a crime as well as a civil rights violation. There's a fine line between holding someone for the police and kidnapping them, and if he crossed it, there's a case to be made against him. I'd be curious to see what the ultimate resolution of the case was. I suspect it was ultimately either thrown out or ruled in favor of the farmer.

---