Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOLOLSo what do you know in terms of what they’ve been told? You claim they were told there would be no danger. Where did those mothers say that?Great, now how about answering the questions I actually asked?Where’s your evidence they were told the U.S. would do nothing? What’s the rest of the story?
I'm going by what I know about mothers and their natural reluctance to put their children in danger. I don't think a good mother would take her child into an area that she thought was likely to see military action, and seriously, who would not think there would be a response to a violent attack on a border crossing? But, maybe that's just me.
I didn’t ask why a mother would drag her kids into a dangerous situation— I asked where’s your evidence they were told it wouldn’t be dangerous?
And you said we’re not getting the whole story... what do you think we’re not being told?
I told you I'm going by what I know about mothers and their children. Was that too difficult?
The rest of the story is, as I made clear, the young, healthy men attacking the border crossing that were causing the non lethal response. The side of the story we're told over and over again is how awful it is that children were exposed to treat gas. What's missing is WHY the gas was deployed. Where are the photos of the men crashing the border crossing, throwing rocks and bottles, that forced the Americans to take action?
Palestinians are famous for placing rocket launcher and morters next to and in schools and hospitals. When the Israelis take them out, they inevitably harm civilians, which is the point. The media, by focusing solely on the inevitable result of violence, is ignoring the reason for the response in the first place.
And you said the whole story isn’t being told. Now you claim you’re speaking of folks attacking the border crossing as the catalyst for the response they received — but that IS part of the story being told. There is no “rest of the story,” You made that up.
Obviously, you have a comprehension problem.
1. My opinion is that a good mother does not knowingly take her children into danger.
2. This woman took her children into a place where year gas was deployed.
3. Is she a terrible mother who deliberately took her children into harm's way, or is she not and assumed that violently attacking the border crossing would not be met with any response? I'm assuming the latter.
4. What part of the story has consumed headlines and gotten the TV bobbleheads all excited, the fact that the crossing was attacked and we were forced to respond or this one image?
If you can't answer those and figure out where you went off the tracks, I can't help you.
LOLOLSo what do you know in terms of what they’ve been told? You claim they were told there would be no danger. Where did those mothers say that?Great, now how about answering the questions I actually asked?I'm going by what I know about mothers and their natural reluctance to put their children in danger. I don't think a good mother would take her child into an area that she thought was likely to see military action, and seriously, who would not think there would be a response to a violent attack on a border crossing? But, maybe that's just me.
I didn’t ask why a mother would drag her kids into a dangerous situation— I asked where’s your evidence they were told it wouldn’t be dangerous?
And you said we’re not getting the whole story... what do you think we’re not being told?
I told you I'm going by what I know about mothers and their children. Was that too difficult?
The rest of the story is, as I made clear, the young, healthy men attacking the border crossing that were causing the non lethal response. The side of the story we're told over and over again is how awful it is that children were exposed to treat gas. What's missing is WHY the gas was deployed. Where are the photos of the men crashing the border crossing, throwing rocks and bottles, that forced the Americans to take action?
Palestinians are famous for placing rocket launcher and morters next to and in schools and hospitals. When the Israelis take them out, they inevitably harm civilians, which is the point. The media, by focusing solely on the inevitable result of violence, is ignoring the reason for the response in the first place.
And you said the whole story isn’t being told. Now you claim you’re speaking of folks attacking the border crossing as the catalyst for the response they received — but that IS part of the story being told. There is no “rest of the story,” You made that up.
Obviously, you have a comprehension problem.
1. My opinion is that a good mother does not knowingly take her children into danger.
2. This woman took her children into a place where year gas was deployed.
3. Is she a terrible mother who deliberately took her children into harm's way, or is she not and assumed that violently attacking the border crossing would not be met with any response? I'm assuming the latter.
4. What part of the story has consumed headlines and gotten the TV bobbleheads all excited, the fact that the crossing was attacked and we were forced to respond or this one image?
If you can't answer those and figure out where you went off the tracks, I can't help you.
You can’t answer those, yet here you are, making shit up. And despite your hysterics, the story included some throwing rocks at the border and even hitting some patrolling it, spurring the gas deployment. So your idiotic claim that the whole story had not been told is decimated.
Who cares? Here’s what you idiotically said...LOLOLSo what do you know in terms of what they’ve been told? You claim they were told there would be no danger. Where did those mothers say that?Great, now how about answering the questions I actually asked?
I didn’t ask why a mother would drag her kids into a dangerous situation— I asked where’s your evidence they were told it wouldn’t be dangerous?
And you said we’re not getting the whole story... what do you think we’re not being told?
I told you I'm going by what I know about mothers and their children. Was that too difficult?
The rest of the story is, as I made clear, the young, healthy men attacking the border crossing that were causing the non lethal response. The side of the story we're told over and over again is how awful it is that children were exposed to treat gas. What's missing is WHY the gas was deployed. Where are the photos of the men crashing the border crossing, throwing rocks and bottles, that forced the Americans to take action?
Palestinians are famous for placing rocket launcher and morters next to and in schools and hospitals. When the Israelis take them out, they inevitably harm civilians, which is the point. The media, by focusing solely on the inevitable result of violence, is ignoring the reason for the response in the first place.
And you said the whole story isn’t being told. Now you claim you’re speaking of folks attacking the border crossing as the catalyst for the response they received — but that IS part of the story being told. There is no “rest of the story,” You made that up.
Obviously, you have a comprehension problem.
1. My opinion is that a good mother does not knowingly take her children into danger.
2. This woman took her children into a place where year gas was deployed.
3. Is she a terrible mother who deliberately took her children into harm's way, or is she not and assumed that violently attacking the border crossing would not be met with any response? I'm assuming the latter.
4. What part of the story has consumed headlines and gotten the TV bobbleheads all excited, the fact that the crossing was attacked and we were forced to respond or this one image?
If you can't answer those and figure out where you went off the tracks, I can't help you.
You can’t answer those, yet here you are, making shit up. And despite your hysterics, the story included some throwing rocks at the border and even hitting some patrolling it, spurring the gas deployment. So your idiotic claim that the whole story had not been told is decimated.
And which picture is being talked about more than any other?
The left will twist the picture into something that rivals Jews being ushered into the ovens.
Instead of asking why tear gas was used, we should be asking why the left has no problem with our borders being stormed.
They aren't reporting everything that's going on. Here we have a picture of some woman dragging two little girls through a riot, her other three charges nowhere to be found.Who cares? Here’s what you idiotically said...LOLOLSo what do you know in terms of what they’ve been told? You claim they were told there would be no danger. Where did those mothers say that?I told you I'm going by what I know about mothers and their children. Was that too difficult?
The rest of the story is, as I made clear, the young, healthy men attacking the border crossing that were causing the non lethal response. The side of the story we're told over and over again is how awful it is that children were exposed to treat gas. What's missing is WHY the gas was deployed. Where are the photos of the men crashing the border crossing, throwing rocks and bottles, that forced the Americans to take action?
Palestinians are famous for placing rocket launcher and morters next to and in schools and hospitals. When the Israelis take them out, they inevitably harm civilians, which is the point. The media, by focusing solely on the inevitable result of violence, is ignoring the reason for the response in the first place.
And you said the whole story isn’t being told. Now you claim you’re speaking of folks attacking the border crossing as the catalyst for the response they received — but that IS part of the story being told. There is no “rest of the story,” You made that up.
Obviously, you have a comprehension problem.
1. My opinion is that a good mother does not knowingly take her children into danger.
2. This woman took her children into a place where year gas was deployed.
3. Is she a terrible mother who deliberately took her children into harm's way, or is she not and assumed that violently attacking the border crossing would not be met with any response? I'm assuming the latter.
4. What part of the story has consumed headlines and gotten the TV bobbleheads all excited, the fact that the crossing was attacked and we were forced to respond or this one image?
If you can't answer those and figure out where you went off the tracks, I can't help you.
You can’t answer those, yet here you are, making shit up. And despite your hysterics, the story included some throwing rocks at the border and even hitting some patrolling it, spurring the gas deployment. So your idiotic claim that the whole story had not been told is decimated.
And which picture is being talked about more than any other?
”It is obvious they are not reporting the complete story of what is going on”
... even you [tacitly] agree that was an idiotic thing to say because you’ve completely abandoned that nonsense in favor of your new argument, that they’re talking more about the mom in that photo than they are of rocks being thrown at riot police.
Now was that so hard for you to finally admit?
That’s if you only look at that one photo and ignore all other reporting.They aren't reporting everything that's going on. Here we have a picture of some woman dragging two little girls through a riot, her other three charges nowhere to be found.Who cares? Here’s what you idiotically said...LOLOLSo what do you know in terms of what they’ve been told? You claim they were told there would be no danger. Where did those mothers say that?
And you said the whole story isn’t being told. Now you claim you’re speaking of folks attacking the border crossing as the catalyst for the response they received — but that IS part of the story being told. There is no “rest of the story,” You made that up.
Obviously, you have a comprehension problem.
1. My opinion is that a good mother does not knowingly take her children into danger.
2. This woman took her children into a place where year gas was deployed.
3. Is she a terrible mother who deliberately took her children into harm's way, or is she not and assumed that violently attacking the border crossing would not be met with any response? I'm assuming the latter.
4. What part of the story has consumed headlines and gotten the TV bobbleheads all excited, the fact that the crossing was attacked and we were forced to respond or this one image?
If you can't answer those and figure out where you went off the tracks, I can't help you.
You can’t answer those, yet here you are, making shit up. And despite your hysterics, the story included some throwing rocks at the border and even hitting some patrolling it, spurring the gas deployment. So your idiotic claim that the whole story had not been told is decimated.
And which picture is being talked about more than any other?
”It is obvious they are not reporting the complete story of what is going on”
... even you [tacitly] agree that was an idiotic thing to say because you’ve completely abandoned that nonsense in favor of your new argument, that they’re talking more about the mom in that photo than they are of rocks being thrown at riot police.
Now was that so hard for you to finally admit?
That sound like everything to you?
They aren't reporting everything that's going on. Here we have a picture of some woman dragging two little girls through a riot, her other three charges nowhere to be found.Who cares? Here’s what you idiotically said...LOLOLSo what do you know in terms of what they’ve been told? You claim they were told there would be no danger. Where did those mothers say that?
And you said the whole story isn’t being told. Now you claim you’re speaking of folks attacking the border crossing as the catalyst for the response they received — but that IS part of the story being told. There is no “rest of the story,” You made that up.
Obviously, you have a comprehension problem.
1. My opinion is that a good mother does not knowingly take her children into danger.
2. This woman took her children into a place where year gas was deployed.
3. Is she a terrible mother who deliberately took her children into harm's way, or is she not and assumed that violently attacking the border crossing would not be met with any response? I'm assuming the latter.
4. What part of the story has consumed headlines and gotten the TV bobbleheads all excited, the fact that the crossing was attacked and we were forced to respond or this one image?
If you can't answer those and figure out where you went off the tracks, I can't help you.
You can’t answer those, yet here you are, making shit up. And despite your hysterics, the story included some throwing rocks at the border and even hitting some patrolling it, spurring the gas deployment. So your idiotic claim that the whole story had not been told is decimated.
And which picture is being talked about more than any other?
”It is obvious they are not reporting the complete story of what is going on”
... even you [tacitly] agree that was an idiotic thing to say because you’ve completely abandoned that nonsense in favor of your new argument, that they’re talking more about the mom in that photo than they are of rocks being thrown at riot police.
Now was that so hard for you to finally admit?
That sound like everything to you?
The other reporting is what I've been schooling you on this entire thread. No one, including you, has any idea where her other 3 children were during her supposed mad dash.That’s if you only look at that one photo and ignore all other reporting.They aren't reporting everything that's going on. Here we have a picture of some woman dragging two little girls through a riot, her other three charges nowhere to be found.Who cares? Here’s what you idiotically said...LOLOLObviously, you have a comprehension problem.
1. My opinion is that a good mother does not knowingly take her children into danger.
2. This woman took her children into a place where year gas was deployed.
3. Is she a terrible mother who deliberately took her children into harm's way, or is she not and assumed that violently attacking the border crossing would not be met with any response? I'm assuming the latter.
4. What part of the story has consumed headlines and gotten the TV bobbleheads all excited, the fact that the crossing was attacked and we were forced to respond or this one image?
If you can't answer those and figure out where you went off the tracks, I can't help you.
You can’t answer those, yet here you are, making shit up. And despite your hysterics, the story included some throwing rocks at the border and even hitting some patrolling it, spurring the gas deployment. So your idiotic claim that the whole story had not been told is decimated.
And which picture is being talked about more than any other?
”It is obvious they are not reporting the complete story of what is going on”
... even you [tacitly] agree that was an idiotic thing to say because you’ve completely abandoned that nonsense in favor of your new argument, that they’re talking more about the mom in that photo than they are of rocks being thrown at riot police.
Now was that so hard for you to finally admit?
That sound like everything to you?
The press needs to be aggressive with Trump and not accept his lies and denialsOnce more A) Acosta asks question.He expected an answer to his question......not a presidential temper tantrumA legitimate president DID answer and Acosta tried to turn his answer into a filibuster.He asked a legitimate questionIf true it's a black mark for Fox, as far as I'm concerned.Fox News joined CNNs lawsuit
Protecting their ass for the future
Jim Acosta has no right to use a press conference for self aggrandizement and partisan purposes.
He's not a journalist. He's a propagandist.
A legitimate president would have answered
Acosta is a propagandist and provocateur.
B) Trump answers question.
C) Acosta doesn't accept answer...wants to engage in argument over the definition of the word "invasion".
Keep swinging, pal. One day you'll hit the ball, probably.
Outside the frame?The other reporting is what I've been schooling you on this entire thread. No one, including you, has any idea where her other 3 children were during her supposed mad dash.That’s if you only look at that one photo and ignore all other reporting.They aren't reporting everything that's going on. Here we have a picture of some woman dragging two little girls through a riot, her other three charges nowhere to be found.Who cares? Here’s what you idiotically said...LOLOL
You can’t answer those, yet here you are, making shit up. And despite your hysterics, the story included some throwing rocks at the border and even hitting some patrolling it, spurring the gas deployment. So your idiotic claim that the whole story had not been told is decimated.
And which picture is being talked about more than any other?
”It is obvious they are not reporting the complete story of what is going on”
... even you [tacitly] agree that was an idiotic thing to say because you’ve completely abandoned that nonsense in favor of your new argument, that they’re talking more about the mom in that photo than they are of rocks being thrown at riot police.
Now was that so hard for you to finally admit?
That sound like everything to you?
It's a con and you're the trick.
Your OP is obvious fakeThey aren't reporting everything that's going on. Here we have a picture of some woman dragging two little girls through a riot, her other three charges nowhere to be found.Who cares? Here’s what you idiotically said...LOLOLObviously, you have a comprehension problem.
1. My opinion is that a good mother does not knowingly take her children into danger.
2. This woman took her children into a place where year gas was deployed.
3. Is she a terrible mother who deliberately took her children into harm's way, or is she not and assumed that violently attacking the border crossing would not be met with any response? I'm assuming the latter.
4. What part of the story has consumed headlines and gotten the TV bobbleheads all excited, the fact that the crossing was attacked and we were forced to respond or this one image?
If you can't answer those and figure out where you went off the tracks, I can't help you.
You can’t answer those, yet here you are, making shit up. And despite your hysterics, the story included some throwing rocks at the border and even hitting some patrolling it, spurring the gas deployment. So your idiotic claim that the whole story had not been told is decimated.
And which picture is being talked about more than any other?
”It is obvious they are not reporting the complete story of what is going on”
... even you [tacitly] agree that was an idiotic thing to say because you’ve completely abandoned that nonsense in favor of your new argument, that they’re talking more about the mom in that photo than they are of rocks being thrown at riot police.
Now was that so hard for you to finally admit?
That sound like everything to you?
It's all set up.
Fake news.
It's a guess, anyway.Outside the frame?The other reporting is what I've been schooling you on this entire thread. No one, including you, has any idea where her other 3 children were during her supposed mad dash.That’s if you only look at that one photo and ignore all other reporting.They aren't reporting everything that's going on. Here we have a picture of some woman dragging two little girls through a riot, her other three charges nowhere to be found.Who cares? Here’s what you idiotically said...And which picture is being talked about more than any other?
”It is obvious they are not reporting the complete story of what is going on”
... even you [tacitly] agree that was an idiotic thing to say because you’ve completely abandoned that nonsense in favor of your new argument, that they’re talking more about the mom in that photo than they are of rocks being thrown at riot police.
Now was that so hard for you to finally admit?
That sound like everything to you?
It's a con and you're the trick.
That's bullshit! A White House press conference is not the time or place to try to draw Donald Trump into aThe press needs to be aggressive with Trump and not accept his lies and denialsOnce more A) Acosta asks question.He expected an answer to his question......not a presidential temper tantrumA legitimate president DID answer and Acosta tried to turn his answer into a filibuster.He asked a legitimate questionIf true it's a black mark for Fox, as far as I'm concerned.
Jim Acosta has no right to use a press conference for self aggrandizement and partisan purposes.
He's not a journalist. He's a propagandist.
A legitimate president would have answered
Acosta is a propagandist and provocateur.
B) Trump answers question.
C) Acosta doesn't accept answer...wants to engage in argument over the definition of the word "invasion".
Keep swinging, pal. One day you'll hit the ball, probably.
The public depends on it
She's got six tits.
