What the hell just happened with Steven Miller???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care what you drones are saying, Miller was eloquent and backed up every question with facts. Thrush and Acosta started to interrupt to the point they were being obnoxious and petty. That is the problem with the 4th Estate and they hate being called out for it, regardless if they ignore their cosmopolitan mindset. If someone in the media treated Valerie Jarrett the same way they treated Miller yesterday, there would be outrage on this board. Admit lefties, there are two sets of rules depending on your party affiliation.

THIS. So true.

Except it's not. His facts were alternative facts, ie he was lying to you and you are buying the lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you defending Miller and this policy, please read this article in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/03/acosta-versus-miller-a-lurking-ideological-conflict-about-the-statue-of-liberty/

You are defending rhetoric that is purposefully appealing to the Alt-Right base.

That makes you a Nazi sympathizer. An before you go off on me, understand, silence is complicity and I will not remain silent.

This is nothing more that promoting the views and ideals of white surpremeicsts.

It's not just people like PP and Donald Trump and Miller who should be held responsible for promoting the views and ideals of white supremacists, it is also people like McMaster and Kelly who should be held responsible. Either one could fire Miller; instead they sign off on sending Miller out on stage to defend proposed Administration in white nationalist terms. Both of them are generals and probably think their job is to follow the orders of the President. But, generals also have an obligation (and swear an oath) to defend the Constitution. When these obligations come into conflict, their greater obligation is to the Constitution...

If Kelly and McMaster continue to permit this kind of white nationalist rhetoric to spew from the White House, I hope they are both personally tarred by it.

What in God's name are both of you PPs rattling on about? The fact that you equate a common sense immigration bill and the man who delivered the information to the press as "white nationalist rhetoric" and "Nazi sympathizer" just shows how utterly off the deep end you liberals have gone. There was nothing whatsoever racist or xenophobic about what Miller said. In fact, he even called out Acosta for his stupid remark that only people in the UK, Canada, and Australia speak fluent English. Miller pointed out how incredibly narrow-minded Acosta was for suggesting those are the only groups of people who could possibly speak English fluently. And you're calling Miller "white nationalist"?? Get your facts straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care what you drones are saying, Miller was eloquent and backed up every question with facts. Thrush and Acosta started to interrupt to the point they were being obnoxious and petty. That is the problem with the 4th Estate and they hate being called out for it, regardless if they ignore their cosmopolitan mindset. If someone in the media treated Valerie Jarrett the same way they treated Miller yesterday, there would be outrage on this board. Admit lefties, there are two sets of rules depending on your party affiliation.

THIS. So true.

MILLER: Do you really -- I want to be serious, Jim.

Do you really at CNN not know the difference between green card policy and illegal immigration? You really don't know that?

...

MILLER: Jim, actually, I have to honestly say, I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English.

This actually -- it reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree, that, in your mind -- no, this is an amazing -- this is an amazing moment. This is an amazing moment--

...

MILLER: Jim, that is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant, and foolish things you have ever said. And for you, that's still a really -- the notion that you think that this is a racist bill is so wrong--

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care what you drones are saying, Miller was eloquent and backed up every question with facts. Thrush and Acosta started to interrupt to the point they were being obnoxious and petty. That is the problem with the 4th Estate and they hate being called out for it, regardless if they ignore their cosmopolitan mindset. If someone in the media treated Valerie Jarrett the same way they treated Miller yesterday, there would be outrage on this board. Admit lefties, there are two sets of rules depending on your party affiliation.

THIS. So true.

Except it's not. His facts were alternative facts, ie he was lying to you and you are buying the lie.

Nope. It is you who is promulgating alternative facts by grossly over-exaggerating what Miller said and what this bill is all about. Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

The comment about the carve out for the New York Times to hire cheap journalists still has me in stitches. lol

[Anonymous]

My liberal compatriots: stop defending Jim Acosta - the guy made a stupid and utterly idiotic remark about the British and Australians being the ones who speak English. What he was trying to do was to suggest that the policy was racist and he used a rationale that was nonsensical.

I am just amazed that anyone rationalizes Acosta's rant.

I obviously did not vote for Trump and I think Miller's motivations are questionable but I watched the news conference and he was intellectually head and shoulders above the likes of Acosta. Miller went to Duke and Acosta to JMU - colleges don't always tell everything about intellectual prowess but in this case, I think it does tell the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you defending Miller and this policy, please read this article in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/03/acosta-versus-miller-a-lurking-ideological-conflict-about-the-statue-of-liberty/

You are defending rhetoric that is purposefully appealing to the Alt-Right base.

That makes you a Nazi sympathizer. An before you go off on me, understand, silence is complicity and I will not remain silent.

This is nothing more that promoting the views and ideals of white surpremeicsts.

It's not just people like PP and Donald Trump and Miller who should be held responsible for promoting the views and ideals of white supremacists, it is also people like McMaster and Kelly who should be held responsible. Either one could fire Miller; instead they sign off on sending Miller out on stage to defend proposed Administration in white nationalist terms. Both of them are generals and probably think their job is to follow the orders of the President. But, generals also have an obligation (and swear an oath) to defend the Constitution. When these obligations come into conflict, their greater obligation is to the Constitution...

If Kelly and McMaster continue to permit this kind of white nationalist rhetoric to spew from the White House, I hope they are both personally tarred by it.

What in God's name are both of you PPs rattling on about? The fact that you equate a common sense immigration bill and the man who delivered the information to the press as "white nationalist rhetoric" and "Nazi sympathizer" just shows how utterly off the deep end you liberals have gone. There was nothing whatsoever racist or xenophobic about what Miller said. In fact, he even called out Acosta for his stupid remark that only people in the UK, Canada, and Australia speak fluent English. Miller pointed out how incredibly narrow-minded Acosta was for suggesting those are the only groups of people who could possibly speak English fluently. And you're calling Miller "white nationalist"?? Get your facts straight.

You don't understand it because you are likely white and uneducated on such issues. Please educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you defending Miller and this policy, please read this article in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/03/acosta-versus-miller-a-lurking-ideological-conflict-about-the-statue-of-liberty/

You are defending rhetoric that is purposefully appealing to the Alt-Right base.

That makes you a Nazi sympathizer. An before you go off on me, understand, silence is complicity and I will not remain silent.

This is nothing more that promoting the views and ideals of white surpremeicsts.

It's not just people like PP and Donald Trump and Miller who should be held responsible for promoting the views and ideals of white supremacists, it is also people like McMaster and Kelly who should be held responsible. Either one could fire Miller; instead they sign off on sending Miller out on stage to defend proposed Administration in white nationalist terms. Both of them are generals and probably think their job is to follow the orders of the President. But, generals also have an obligation (and swear an oath) to defend the Constitution. When these obligations come into conflict, their greater obligation is to the Constitution...

If Kelly and McMaster continue to permit this kind of white nationalist rhetoric to spew from the White House, I hope they are both personally tarred by it.

What in God's name are both of you PPs rattling on about? The fact that you equate a common sense immigration bill and the man who delivered the information to the press as "white nationalist rhetoric" and "Nazi sympathizer" just shows how utterly off the deep end you liberals have gone. There was nothing whatsoever racist or xenophobic about what Miller said. In fact, he even called out Acosta for his stupid remark that only people in the UK, Canada, and Australia speak fluent English. Miller pointed out how incredibly narrow-minded Acosta was for suggesting those are the only groups of people who could possibly speak English fluently. And you're calling Miller "white nationalist"?? Get your facts straight.

I'm not sure if cutting green card numbers in half is common sense or not, but it's not explicitly racist. (Cutting numbers of immigrants is kinda xenophobic, though. It's hard to say that it isn't with a straight face.) Miller tried really hard to make it out to be, though. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Lindsay Graham opposes this bill. I am sure there are many other Republicans who will also oppose it, because they understand economics over racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care what you drones are saying, Miller was eloquent and backed up every question with facts. Thrush and Acosta started to interrupt to the point they were being obnoxious and petty. That is the problem with the 4th Estate and they hate being called out for it, regardless if they ignore their cosmopolitan mindset. If someone in the media treated Valerie Jarrett the same way they treated Miller yesterday, there would be outrage on this board. Admit lefties, there are two sets of rules depending on your party affiliation.

THIS. So true.

MILLER: Do you really -- I want to be serious, Jim.

Do you really at CNN not know the difference between green card policy and illegal immigration? You really don't know that?

...

MILLER: Jim, actually, I have to honestly say, I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English.

This actually -- it reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree, that, in your mind -- no, this is an amazing -- this is an amazing moment. This is an amazing moment--

...

MILLER: Jim, that is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant, and foolish things you have ever said. And for you, that's still a really -- the notion that you think that this is a racist bill is so wrong--

I put this here to show that Miller just looks like a jerk in the transcript. I didn't watch the video but I can't imagine he looks any better.

I hate having to have to talk to this sort of person. It is just so annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My liberal compatriots: stop defending Jim Acosta - the guy made a stupid and utterly idiotic remark about the British and Australians being the ones who speak English. What he was trying to do was to suggest that the policy was racist and he used a rationale that was nonsensical.

I am just amazed that anyone rationalizes Acosta's rant.

I obviously did not vote for Trump and I think Miller's motivations are questionable but I watched the news conference and he was intellectually head and shoulders above the likes of Acosta. Miller went to Duke and Acosta to JMU - colleges don't always tell everything about intellectual prowess but in this case, I think it does tell the story.

a) you're not a liberal

b) yes, it was a stupid remark, which is why it was dumb to treat it like a REAL remark. Miller isn't "showing him up" by acting like Acosta is completely ignorant, when he just said something off-the-cuff that was not well thought out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the left has resorted to personalizing the story, when the facts are the whinny press were schooled by someone who knew his $hit.

Saw the interaction yesterday. 100% correct. Need more of this. Reason thinks of themselves as elite and need taking down a few pegs

You are defending White Nationalist propaganda. I hope you can live with yourself.

Not the PP, but I hope you can live with yourself by slapping the "white nationalist" label onto every person you disagree with. Do you know how ignorant you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched the exchange before running into this thread, I don't see how anyone could think that Acosta won the exchange. Very clearly Miller had the upper hand in factual knowledge, historical context, and logic.

Exactly the conclusion I came to, and I watched this exchange twice. Acosta came off as whiny, pouty, and clearly out of his league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the exchange before running into this thread, I don't see how anyone could think that Acosta won the exchange. Very clearly Miller had the upper hand in factual knowledge, historical context, and logic.

Exactly the conclusion I came to, and I watched this exchange twice. Acosta came off as whiny, pouty, and clearly out of his league.

Miller may have convinced you with his presentation, but he was mistaken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acosta got owned. His papers are being sent to Miller for his possession.

You are vile.

I love the bitter desperation of the left who can't take it when someone of superior intelligence can unflinchingly take the heat from a uninformed reporter.

Miller could have gone an hour.

It's hilariously obvious that Acosta now acts this way merely to make some sort of name for himself.

Keep bringing it Jimbo.

Right, Miller showed his intelligence and full grasp of the topic at hand. Jimbo, as you call him, was merely repeating talking points. On CNN last night he and Angela, his fellow crony, were patting themselves on the back for being troopers in the war against Trump. Jimbo, you couldn't hold a candle to one of our military soldiers who are in actual danger, you are a JOKE as is anyone who wants to defend your ignorance. Sixty countries Jimbo, sixty, they all speak English. Jesus, come away from the mirror and open a book.

Well said.

+100