The LVRJ editorial staff loses its mind

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

If you're at all familiar with the Las Vegas Review-Journal--essentially, the only daily paper in town--you'll know that it's a right-wing extremist rag, featuring distorted headlines and "opinion" columnists such as the unapologetic white supremacist Victor Joecks and the fawning Trump lackey Wayne Allen Root. Even the letters to the editor that are published carry about a 4:1 Trumper slant.

 

They really went off the rails today, though. They published an "opinion of the editors" piece reporting that the Obamas were going to purchase a house on Martha's Vineyard. They said that that proves that climate change is a liberal hoax designed to enable the Democrats to take over American government.

 

The "logic"? Climate change is supposed to result in rising ocean levels. Therefore, anyone believing in climate change wouldn't want to live on an island. Therefore, Obama must not really believe in it.

 

This is absolutely, breathtakingly stupid, but I'll bet our resident Trumpers will chime in in agreement with it. And of course, over two years after he left office, "conservs" are still bleeding from all orifices at the fact that a no-good darky was running the country for eight years.


The RJ is a newspaper that publishes opinions in their opinion section. Wow! How dare they do that? I have a friend who is a reporter at the RJ. He does not insert his political opinions into his articles. He knows that stuff belongs in the opinion section, not in regular news articles. His colleagues know this too.

 

In 2008, man-made global warming alarmists were saying coastal areas would be under water by 2015. When their predictions are proven false by the passage of time, they just change the datelines. Al Gore was predicting that arctic ice would be completely gone during the summer by 2013 or 2014. That is the kind of "settled science" that the alarmists tout on a regular basis.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Off topic. But I think the "they should go back where they came from" tweet is a front-runner.


What he said was: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.” Why do you always omit the "Then come back and show us how us how it is done." part? Wouldn't a real racist want them to stay there?

Originally posted by: Mark

Candy said, "Farewell, Kevin.  I suspect you just sealed your fate.  Nice knowing you.

 

OR, here's an idea.  QUICK, before the boss sees it, edit out the pejorative words you used for those members of congress.  I feel certain you do it for emphasis (and you contradict yourself doing it), but very bad idea."

 

 

Candy, it is called context. His comment suggests the reason why Trump and conservatives have chosen to single those four members of congress out rather than other white male members of congress that hold similar views.


Why doesn't the MSM broadcast these so-called "similar views"? Are these guys hiding?

Originally posted by: Mark

If I am not mistaken, he did follow him to front end of the site and start making snarky/nasty comments about his work there more than once.


How could he "follow" him to an area BEFORE Kevin started posting his rants here in the Kitchen Sink?


Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Tom, let me gently explain to you--the allegation came during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. Therefore, he couldn't have been impeached then--he wasn't in office. This most recent story simply confirms the previous allegation. Your statement that Democrats called for his impeachment is therefore a LIE. You're LYING.

 

And yeah, whenever anyone accuses a Republican of anything, it's all FAKE NOOZE and whoever makes the accusation is a "Clinton hack." After all, you MUST be a Democrat if you say anything negative about Kavanaugh!


Some Democrats were talking about impeaching Kavanaugh BEFORE he was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

 

Stier was a Clinton lawyer...

Kevin wrote: "The difference is that lying is Trump's default setting."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?fbclid=IwAR04EPe6jfU0uOl3Rw9YvL8HcR_dhQdrSoaSKvbd6Bl48BAI9qsUdYpAxGg&noredirect=on

" but the fact of the matter is that those cities are in good fiscal shape (yes, including Detroit!) "

 

Kevin is wrong again.  According to Wallethub out of 150 cities Detroit was number 145 & San Fran was 148.  According to the Census study of cities Detroit was the poorest

Originally posted by: Bob Orme

What he said was: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.” Why do you always omit the "Then come back and show us how us how it is done." part? Wouldn't a real racist want them to stay there?


I'd like to point out that the place from which they came is, in 3 of 4 instances, the United States. Fixing the totally broken Electoral College and dealing with crime by impeaching him would indeed be a start.

 

I'll explain to you why Trump's thoughts and words were racist. He regarded the four women solely in terms of their color, and jumped to the stupid conclusion that they must be from foreign countries (like one of his African "shitholes"). And yes, he did indeed invoke the "they should go back where they came from" white supremacist meme.

 

To regard and treat people solely on the basis of their race is, by definition, racism. I know that Trumpers stumbled all over themselves to excuse Trump when he said that. I see that you're similarly stumbling. Why do you defend this evil moron? Do you think he'll nominate you for a Cabinet post or something?

Originally posted by: Bob Orme

Some Democrats were talking about impeaching Kavanaugh BEFORE he was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

 

Stier was a Clinton lawyer...


Duhhhh...you can't impeach someone BEFORE they hold an office.

Originally posted by: tom

" but the fact of the matter is that those cities are in good fiscal shape (yes, including Detroit!) "

 

Kevin is wrong again.  According to Wallethub out of 150 cities Detroit was number 145 & San Fran was 148.  According to the Census study of cities Detroit was the poorest


And WalletHub is a credible source, using rigorously acquired data? Number 145 and 148 out of what?

 

The fiscal condition of a city has little to do with the wealth of its individual citizens. But you'll make any argument you wish, even a nonsensical one.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now