Jump to content
You know, I'm pretty sure you're a smart guy, but it's amusing to see how little insight you have into your own biases. Maybe it's because I've always had to invest my own retirement funds, but I've never been able to afford to be blind to my own biases the way you are. The silver lining for me in the destruction Obama is bringing to the country is that I've invested on the premise that he would win each election (although I voted and contributed against him) and that he would do as he has done. If I have to hate to be right, at least I can make a little money off of it..
I saw "Sicko." Now THERE'S a terrible film. If it scored 74/100 that proves to me that the critical establishment is nuts.
So now, not only science, but movies are to be decided on the basis of majority vote? I have seen dozens of movies with great reviews that I found to be trite, banal, inane, or so predictable I could practically recite the script as the actors mouthed it (Interview with a Vampire stands out for the latter; my screening partner thought I had both read the book and seen the movie before, neither of which was the case.)
Do you choose what cars you drive, what wines you drink, and what children you love on the basis of what "credible people without an agenda say" or do you allow your own ideas to emerge, ever?
You say the documentary in question is terrible. Have you seen it or are you relying on the reviews which you have to admit are likely to reflect the liberal biases of the Hollywood establishment?
And you know this because you've seen it, or because you've let your masters in the Democratic blogosphere do your thinking for you?
Somehow, Paco, I doubt you 've seen it so your review of it as 'repellent' is probably based only on bigotry, and not honest analysis.
The movie industry seems to thrive on "disgraced, convicted felon" types. And some of them actually do make good movies. Haven't seen this one yet. Have you?
It would be funny if it weren't so sad, that in a letter listing numerous supposed massive failures of government to do its job right in everything from releases of radioactivity in government-controlled facilities to regulating the safety of agricultural inputs, the main proposal is to turn total control over everyone's health to that same failing government.
So your story is that fewer people are crossing and more people are being removed. It would necessarily follow from those two premises that the total illegal immigrant population is declining. Since it is, to the contrary, increasing, logically one or both of your premises simply must be wrong.
Sure enough, having looked into this a little further, it appears that the Obama Administration has been fudging its "deportation" statistics by including everybody caught at the border and turned back into Mexico as "deportations", even though they are technically "returns". This apparently amounted to over 140,000 over two years, and concealed the reality that true deportations were DOWN by 20%. Obama also apparently has double-counted deportations if they entailed a removal from one Border Patrol area to another before the actual deportation.
Should have known that Obama would find a way to cook the books.
Last login: Sunday, July 20, 2014
2014 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.