Anonymous wrote:

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.

I completely agree with you. Except for one thing - are you the poster who keeps bring up where they each went to college? If so, you're making it pretty obvious you (or your kid) didn't get into JMU and you're still bitter. Otherwise, why the insistence on putting down a good school? You're not exactly making liberals more appealing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that McMaster and Kelly sent Miller out there to make an ass out of himself, nip this ill-thought-out immigration plan in the bud, and hopefully also get him shit-canned.

The question is ... are they evil geniuses or just evil?

Neither, hopefully they are trying to do the right thing. They knew Miller would slip up and start using his Nazi rhetoric and hoped the outcry would be enough to get him axed.

Anonymous wrote:https://thinkprogress.org/stephen-miller-attacks-statue-of-liberty-poem-echoing-popular-white-nationalist-talking-point-f90c2ae0be48/


Stormfront.org, a popular website among white supremacists that boasts the tagline, “Every month is White history month,” has a numerous discussion threads on the topic, including one titled, “Give Me Your Huddled Masses?—?The Jewess who tried to destroy the US!” Contributors to the forum wrote the poem should be “considered graffiti” and stress that Lazarus’ sonnet is “not part of the original” statue at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was a liberal more than likely before you were born.

Yes, Acosta may have inadvertently said something dumb but then the answer would be to just acknowledge it and focus on why someone who does not speak English should be ruled out given that there are millions who have come to this country and then learned English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the way canada, australia, switzerland do immigration?

Our country is very different. Do we want to be Canada, Australia, Switzerland? No. Then why do we want their immigration system?

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the lefty drones use liberally the word "White Nationalists agenda" all the while Miller agreed with April Ryan on the need to help the African American community before the immigrants. Why would a White Nationalist say that to an AA reporter?

Exactly. But that's a logical point. Liberals aren't good with logic. It confuses them and they resort to calling names.

So you are ok with the alt-white rhetoric espoused by Mr. Miller?

He did not espouse any alt-white rhetoric. In fact, he called out Acosta for his simple-minded assumption that the only English speakers would come from the UK, Australia, etc. And Miller was correct in calling Acosta out.

If you want to slap the "alt-right" label on anyone with whom you disagree, that only makes you look stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the lefty drones use liberally the word "White Nationalists agenda" all the while Miller agreed with April Ryan on the need to help the African American community before the immigrants. Why would a White Nationalist say that to an AA reporter?

Exactly. But that's a logical point. Liberals aren't good with logic. It confuses them and they resort to calling names.

So you are ok with the alt-white rhetoric espoused by Mr. Miller?

NP - unless you provide links, this means nothing.

Did you come in at the end of the thread? There are links.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the lefty drones use liberally the word "White Nationalists agenda" all the while Miller agreed with April Ryan on the need to help the African American community before the immigrants. Why would a White Nationalist say that to an AA reporter?

Exactly. But that's a logical point. Liberals aren't good with logic. It confuses them and they resort to calling names.

So you are ok with the alt-white rhetoric espoused by Mr. Miller?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the lefty drones use liberally the word "White Nationalists agenda" all the while Miller agreed with April Ryan on the need to help the African American community before the immigrants. Why would a White Nationalist say that to an AA reporter?

Exactly. But that's a logical point. Liberals aren't good with logic. It confuses them and they resort to calling names.

So you are ok with the alt-white rhetoric espoused by Mr. Miller?

NP - unless you provide links, this means nothing.

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that McMaster and Kelly sent Miller out there to make an ass out of himself, nip this ill-thought-out immigration plan in the bud, and hopefully also get him shit-canned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And many of us would say it's you who is mistaken. Fortunately, we're all allowed to draw our own conclusions and don't need to be preached to by those who would label everyone else "white nationalists."

So you wish to embrace alternative facts in coming to your conclusions.

Winning.

You're actually still using "winning"?