Lol, you say this on a thread where you do what you accuse me of.
You didn't include enough in that sentence to be clear what you're saying.
Sorry the guy [D'Souza] has no credibility.
No, none at all. Beyond writing 21 bestelling books on history and politics, and 4 documentaries that rank among the highest grossing documentaries in film history. And having been president of King's College, and being in high demand on the lecture circuit nationwide.
Beyond his proven fraud that he got partisanly pardoned for...
AGAIN: a minor violation that usually goes unprosecuted or with a fine at worst, for which he was vindictively prosecuted by Obama/Holder's DOJ, precisely because his books were exposing and embarrassing Obama, and were calculated to neutralize D'Souza's influence in the next election.
... he [D'Souza] does stuff like claims this country didn't do horrible things to Indians in one book to than declare horrible things were done to Indians by democrats in another book.
I've either never heard or don't remember D'Souza ever saying that.
All I have is your sayso.
I would LOVE to know the full context of that alleged remark.
It's playing partisan games with history.
AGAIN: I've read two of his books. I see him as citing history, and making very clear where his opinion separates from the facts. See THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE. He makes very clear what the facts are regarding the Marxist radicalism of Obama's parents, grandparents, and people like Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi and William Ayers. But very fairly says (published in 2010) that it would take several years of Obama as president to fairly evaluate how that ideology affected how he governs as president.
No, you really don't. I don't like propaganda that repeats what I want to hear, I like sourced factual perspective that challenges my POV. Pat Buchanan's books are heavily footnoted and sourced. As are D'Souza's. Even Ann Coulter, though clearly about as opinionated in her writing as Harlan Ellison, cites sourced facts, and one can easily see where that separates from her opinion.
...but like I said before it's as honest as just saying Washington owned slaves and leaving out everything he accomplished. LBJ actually accomplished something with civil rights. Remember this was a time where separate but equal was the law. Unthinkable now but back than the south fought and hated the federal government forcing basic equality on them. And not just the South, as I mentioned Trump fought the government in the 70's because he wanted to keep black people out of certain properties.
Oh, man, the
irony!
It is
your side, the Democrat/Left, who one-sidedly slanders our founders as racists, and front the notion that monuments to them don't deserve to exist, that the nation itself doesn't deserve to exist, because it was founded on slavery by evil white guys, who enriched themselves by exploiting people of color.
It is
your side that indoctrinates this hatred of country in the under-30 crowd, and among blacks and Hispanics, to the point that many say (among Democrats) that
they are not proud to be American.
New York Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo,
within the last week, made self-loathing comments to this effect about the country, that "America was never great".
I cited a poll within the last month about the huge deficit of national pride between Democrats and Republicans, because yours is the party of white guilt, self-loathing, and hating America.
And combined with hatred and lack of pride in the U.S., the indoctrinated
hostility toward capitalism and embracing of its anti-American opposite ideaology, socialism among Democrats.
And in Trump's case, there is a difference between discriminating on people because of skin color, and wanting to exclude a certain segment
of the black community who have been proven to not be good tenants.
I actually had a good example of this in the condo building I'm in, a year or two ago. There was a black lady I met while I was planting flowers in front of my building, days after she moved in. She was attractive and had four sons, in a two bedroom sub-let apartment. I was friendly, she seemed nice. It turned out her four sons were by 4 different fathers, ranging in age from 1 infant to two in their late teens. Over the months after, despite that she was friendly her sons were loud, they left trash in the halls, they were rude. About 6 months after, they were evicted. I spoke to the Rumanian couple who owned the place, while they were repairing it. In their brief 6 months or so, this family had punched holes in the walls, they shattered all the sinks! They never paid a month's rent beyond the initial deposit, and it cost them a lot more than the deposit to restore the apartment. They learned to do a background check on anyone they rent to, and it turned out this family had been evicted from 3 other apartments before this one.
In light of that, I don't judge Trump too harshly for wanting to vet (where have I heard that term before?) who are and aren't good tenants. Especially from a guy who is known for promoting blacks, Hispanics and women to high-level positions in his real estate business, long before other companies were doing the same.
