So you'll trust the news and not the eyes God gave you?
Neat
Edit: I prefer to go to the source. Personally.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And The Border Is Secure??????
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
So you'll trust the news and not the eyes God gave you?
Neat
Edit: I prefer to go to the source. Personally.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I generally do but this particular bill is many pages long and full of cross references and amendments so nope. It's for nothing anyway.
Meanwhile, knock yourself out.
Willful ignorance is still ignorance.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Have fun with that.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
OK, sorry for trusting the BBC, Reuters, PBS, and Newsweek (just the sources I quoted). Do you think they are wrong?
I find it very interesting that no one will say that the BBC, PBS, Reuters or Newsweek is wrong.
I am. I prefer to be an informed voter and not a media brainwashed troll.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
So do you think that Reuters, the BBC, PBS, and Newsweek are all wrong?
They each tell a piece of the story. The whole story is within the text of the bill.
For clarification, only telling a piece of the story doesn't make a source wrong. It makes them a biased one (which they all are, it's human nature).
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
They all specifically bring up the funds for Ukraine and Israel. Which is one of many reasons why nearly every single Republican and at least one Democrat voted against the bill.
And that is a single piece of a larger story, possibly.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
See my earlier post, from like a minute ago.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I thought you were from Jack the Ripper's heritage?
Seems like the GOP was using for leverage, not the other way around:
"Three senators – Oklahoma Republican James Lankford, Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy and Arizona independent Kyrsten Sinema – spent months crafting a bill that would overhaul immigration policy at the request of Senate Republicans who insisted border security provisions should be included in the foreign aid package."
"Texas Republican Chip Roy agreed that the bill would not become law, and expressed his frustration that the GOP would not try to leverage foreign aid money for it.
“Republicans continue to campaign on securing the border and then refuse to use any leverage to actually secure the border,” Roy said. “We should get it signed into law but the only way to force Democrats to do it is to use leverage.”
U.S. House votes down border bill favored by conservatives
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Saturday failed to pass a border security bill that Republican leadership intended as an incentive for conservatives to support a foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
So, Reuters, the BBC, PBS and Newsweek all made up the stuff about Israel and Ukraine. Wow, heads should roll! (I mean that facetiously.) But seriously, they were very specific about amounts of aid, all that good stuff.
Is that what I said? Or did I say specifically :
It makes the source biased. Which they are. And if you look at my previous post, I quoted where and why the bill was attached to the Ukraine aid package by the GOP (#74)
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
So does the bill link to aid to Ukraine and Israel?
Not in the first bit I've managed to read. Albeit, reading in the car makes me nauseous.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
It's very unclear and difficult to read to me.
Which is the only reason I turned to Google (actually Bing) and Reuters, and the BBC, and PBS, and Newsweek. Which are now apparently biased sources.
Here is what politico's version states from February his year about the aid package.
"A $118 billion international aid package is on the brink of collapse in the Senate as Republicans continue to oppose it over border security provisions they argue aren’t tough enough. But some opponents of the funding bill have another familiar argument: that the bill would also send $60 billion directly to Ukraine.
Most of the money dedicated to Ukraine, however, won’t leave the U.S. Instead, tens of billions of dollars will fill Pentagon coffers to purchase new weapons from U.S. companies to refill inventories that have been tapped to help Ukraine, finance military operations and sign contracts for new weapons for Kyiv."