Skip to navigationSkip to content
Nick Palmer

Nick Palmer

semi-retired
  • no building housing for the homeless doesn't magically take away the homeless. most don't want to be housed. but go ahead California. you already have 25% of the nation's homeless in a state that makes up 10% of the population. and yeah San Francisco had turned into a disgusting cesspool.

    and isn't

    no building housing for the homeless doesn't magically take away the homeless. most don't want to be housed. but go ahead California. you already have 25% of the nation's homeless in a state that makes up 10% of the population. and yeah San Francisco had turned into a disgusting cesspool.

    and isn't it odd that homelessness is so much bigger a problem in progressive cities? dont people stop and think about that? don't they wonder why? don't they examine that with an open, critical mind? doesn't that, therefore, lead people to question the efficacy of their policies? dont they wonder what effective programs are in place to curtail the national homeless problem instead of continuing with programs that don't work? don't they really care about the problem, but more about political posturing and getting the right tagline?

    do they care more about a socialist agenda than they do homeless people, while at the same time shouting that they are the righteous majority, champions of the weak and less fortunate?

  • i totally love Serena Williams. she epitomises grace. she always seems to rise above the fray. she's a true champion. we should all aspire to that.

  • those condemning the move from employees to robots are in the sand. and some seem to be running companies. how far removed are you from what it costs to employ a human being?

  • not to beat a dead horse, but trump enforcing the laws on the books should not be called 'trumps policies'. a lot of at-large mental patients running around with zero critical thinking skills. so glad i missed the university indoctrination

  • small steps. that's so cool even if it is just a few hundred people. i think that's a few hundred people more than ever

  • i don't think there was an underlying meaning to this But at the same time, really? like Jane, im baffled that her office didn't discourage her from wearing it. idk maybe they did. but a completely dumb move on her part

    and de' andre. we can't forget about the champion of all women Hillary Clinton who

    i don't think there was an underlying meaning to this But at the same time, really? like Jane, im baffled that her office didn't discourage her from wearing it. idk maybe they did. but a completely dumb move on her part

    and de' andre. we can't forget about the champion of all women Hillary Clinton who was chaste as the driven snow while Bill was doing what he did. but i respect your point

  • illegal immigration needs to be controlled and perhaps legal immigration should be increased. but the toll that open borders is taking on this country is really painting all immigrants in a bad light. that's because liberal mental cases like to conflate legal and illegal immigration. way to go left

  • so what all the liberal talking-head activists have been yelling is that there is no law requiring the govt to separate children from their parents. but the only other recourse is releasing the adults. open borders. the Flores Settlement set judicial precident in 1997 requiring that children of adults

    so what all the liberal talking-head activists have been yelling is that there is no law requiring the govt to separate children from their parents. but the only other recourse is releasing the adults. open borders. the Flores Settlement set judicial precident in 1997 requiring that children of adults incarcerated not be incarcerated with them. that was a case brought forth by open borders activists. and btw, over 10,000 odd the 12,000 children in detention are there because they came here as unaccompanied minors. where's the real wrongdoing here? it is illegal to come into the United States illegally. it is a criminal offense.

  • are we doing that song by the fire tonight? kumbaya? and we'll feel so good that nine children will be reunited with parents. That's a nice story!

    one senior editor of newspicks.. max..you're so young and idealistic. i think naive tho.

  • wow where to begin with this pile of activist drivel. i hope Julie hirschfeld davis doesn't consider herself a journalist but i know the nyt does.

    she speaks of the administration's policy of separating migrant families. this practice is the end result of the Flores Settlement, a 1997 activist decision

    wow where to begin with this pile of activist drivel. i hope Julie hirschfeld davis doesn't consider herself a journalist but i know the nyt does.

    she speaks of the administration's policy of separating migrant families. this practice is the end result of the Flores Settlement, a 1997 activist decision that put strict rules on detention of minors in these situations. yet she says ' there is no law that requires families to be separated at the border'. blatant lie. but she says it. the implication being that if you don't incarcerate the parents, then the family is kept in tact. in other words, we're back to open borders. which is what this dangerous progressive mental patient 'journalist' wants. That's what trump is referring to when he says it's the left's laws that are tying his hands. the Flores Settlement dictates that children cannot be legally detained with their parents or whomever may be carting them across the border for an unreasonable amount of time.

    she characterizes the enforcement of this United States law as a 'widely condemned practice'. by what measure i wonder was she using to discern this info? the bubble people in Manhattan?

    she also refers to illegal immigrants as 'migrants apprehended crossing the border without authorization'. wow what a flourish of journalistic elan. although some would call it doublespeak. and a lame but well worn tactic of conflating legal migration with illegal immigration.

    she talks condescendingly of ag sessions statement that a strict approach is a vital tool for deterrence. i am not college educated but i know that that statement is true and the most humane. but he's painted as a sinister villain for stating a truth.

    she says the President is asking the public to discount what it sees with its own eyes but is that really a tall request when most people 'see' things through the distorted lens of activist wackos like julie hirschfeld davis?

    she is right that previous administrations have made exceptions to the actual laws that hold this country together. by not enforcing the laws enacted by representatives of the American constituency btw. but let's blame the current president for enforcing the will of the people.

    if we as a nation could get a handle on illegal immigration, imagine the resources we could put towards more legal immigration. not saying that's part of the current administration's goals, but think progressively!