“I bet it’s brand new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre,” Conway said during an exchange on the program. “Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered.”

There's literally no such thing as the Bowling Green Massacre. White House officials are now making up terrorist attacks to justify their policies.

Its true though, that Obama did put an immigration ban on Iraqis.  No one complained.  He also dropped bombs on the middle east for eight years, many children and innocent people who killed or maimed thanks to Obama.  Nobody complained.  

When democrats do it - nobody complains
When republicans do it - people complain

Double standards, hypocrisy, etc.

Cause people like you sprout so much utter uninformed & sensationalist shit

Revisionist, seige mentality

There was an apparent sniper plot in Bowling Green, and two Iraqi refugees were implied. One was also found to have detonated a bomb in Iraq. Obama's ban was to improve the vetting process. So there was a specific threat and a reason for the ban on refugees for a period, not to mention the ban was discussed through committees and appropriate channels before enacting. Which is all completely different to the current executive order.

Was also covered in the media:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iraqi-visas/

Actually the band was on refugees from Iraq not immigration across the board. Trump also includes tourist visas, which Obama's ban didn't impact. It was also enacted after due deliberation and because of a imminent threat.

There were plenty of media reports from both sides of the divide that were less than favourable about Obama's military excursions during his time. Their military involvement in Libya was heavily criticised across all media fronts in the USA.

So no massacre then.

No ... there was a plot only. Vetting of all refugees was stepped up as part of the recourse. Hence some of those 1200 refugees Australia want to send to the USA might not have even met their vetting requirements (UN was to determine their refugee credentials, and the USA to do the security vetting).

Such as?

There might have been some rather mooted criticism, but certainly Obama has been treated very very kindly by the liberal media in his eight year campaign of destruction and desolation.

Your head is up your ass if you dont think there are double standards happening.  It's like with refugees in Australia, when Labor lock up thousands of children from detention it's all hunky dory, but when the Liberals release thousands then everyone gets on their humanitarian high horse.

When was it ever hunky dory under labor?
I really want to know if you believe half the things you say or you are just that bored you will do anything for a rise coz you think you know which buttons to push on the 3 people left on this site.

God damn liberal media. So sick of their shit

I think you need to stop reading opinionated blogs and read actual news sites mate.

If there are double standards happening it is because you aren't reading the right pages (or need to take off your rose tinted glasses):

In Australia many of the major newspapers are right leaning (Murdoch's News Corp papers inc. The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, Courier-Mail, Advertiser, Mercury, NT News), then there is Channel 7 (who own the West Australian) and 9 who lean right more than left.

In America you have one the largest networks being FoxNews ... unashamedly right leaning. I'd imagine the main newspapers and networks throughout the mid-west are right leaning too.

But's that only the second most circulated newspaper in Australia ... that doesn't count!!!

By the way another News Corp paper (the Herald Sun) is the most circulated.

This whole "liberal media" catchphrase and Turnballs' "Elite media" catch cries are so blatantly facetious and calculated it's genuinely amusing BUT it is brilliant 21st century catchphrase soundbite politics. The fact that it is complete bullshit does not matter one single little bit. 

No one on the left gave a shit when Labor and the greens were locking up thousands of people in detention and thousands were drowning.  There were no mass protests, no candlelight vigils when boats sank and dozens died, no condemnation from the UNHCR, no film directors going out making documentaries depicting Australia's god awful border policies, it was just silence and crickets.

Then the libs came in, fixed the mess, released thousands of prisoners, saved thousands of lives, and the mainstream media and social media response other than the Murdoch press is to bash the Liberals for committing humanitarian violations.  Like when Reza Berati died, there was the national day or mourning, the guys poor death was hijacked to attack the Liberals policies, yet when boats full of children sank under their watch the left just shrugged their shoulders and went clubbing.

These sick people choose their empathy and compassion based on who is in the Lodge.

Who the fuck reads papers anymore?  Look at the digital circulation compared to the print press, all the top digital sites are left orientated.

You really are gonna have to try harder than that aha
"grrr you sick people" *that will get his blood boiling he he he*

C'mon 

Yeah that's not what happened. There isn't a grand conspiracy going.

The Labor government was condemned for their treatment of refugees too, the Greens continually butted heads with them over their poor handling of the situation. I also recall protests by the public and refugees within camps during the Labor government. Hence why when Abbott got into government they set up a media black out on the issue immediately because during the Labor government's terms it was a major political issue that they couldn't deal with. The Labor government was condemned from right and left media outlets.

So online where you have a choice to read whichever source you choose and aren't beholden to the 1 newspaper in your city, more people read the left leaning ones. They would not be the top sites otherwise. I think that's quite interesting really....

Also, just because YOU don't read newspapers or don't read that newspaper's website do you honestly believe they still don't have influence and that nobody reads them? 

Again, you have to try harder.

news.com.au is the highest rating digital site in Australia. Their network includes The Australia, Daily Telegraph (which is also 9th overall), Courier Mail, Hearld Sun (which is also 8th overall), Advertiser ... in other words a News Corp site.

Sydney Morning Herald is second which traditionally was a conservative (right) newspaper , but has chopped and changed of late (endorsed Labor in 2007 and 2010 but Coalition in 2013).

ABC are third, then the Daily Mail, Ninemsn and the Guardian in sixth (probably the first real left leaning publication)

The silly thing with Milo is, just like his Twitter ban, the more people riot and try to silence him, the more people will flock to him.

-PB

News.com.au is a populist website that is left on many issues including Trump, NBN, borders. It doesn't matter that it's owned by News, the fact is it's left on most issues. You're clueless if you think the SMH and ABC aren't left leaning.  It would be like me arguing that the Australia is slightly left.  Lets not kid ourselves though.

5pm!!!!!!!!

Your homework question for this weekend children is as follows - does "left" just mean "what I don't agree with"?

Have a good weekend fellas!

[Teacher stands in front of students]

"And this is how you successful troll the internet. You make rhetorical statements, that other users quickly shoot you down with as false. So then you grasp at straws, i.e. "I meant digital subscriptions". Then you are shot down again, so you throw in some insults and simply dismiss anything presented that doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion."

[Students furiously make notes]

"Sir, how to we respond to such posters?"

[Teacher ponders]

"Simple. You can't. Some people just want to argue and cling to their preconceived opinion no matter what is put in front of them. You simply need to shake your head and move on with your life. Some people are willfully ignorant and they have every right to make that choice in life."

SMH as a conservative site :laugh:
Supported the libs in 2013 :laugh:
The ABC isnt left biased :laugh:
One Murdoch rag read by old fuddy duddies proves Murdoch controls the press and the minds of all Australians :laugh:
Fairfax is Independent. Always. :laugh:

Yeah SMH is pretty left and ABC is waaaaay to the left on social issues, perhaps not so much with the economy.

Separately, the only thing that feeds Milo's career is the reaction against him. Without that he would quickly be replaced. I am intrigued by his claim that his ideological opposites are currently struggling against him because silencing through identity politics doesn't work.

It was a smart move to put UC Berkeley last on his tour list, but I can just imagine Bannon rushing into Trump's office yelling "you gotta get Berkeley, they banned a Breitbart staffer!!!"

Just thought I would bring it up to about Bannon's appointment to the National Security Council in the US. Trump wrote an executive order to create a position for Bannon's role (it didn't exist before Trump was President). Not only did Trump get him on the NSC but also made his role a regular meeting attendee. Trump also made two previous regular meeting attendee positions non-regular. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (the US military leaders) and the Director of National Intelligence.

Let's look at the CV of the current chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, Joseph Dunford: Served his country since 1977, serving as a commander of regiments in Iraq (1990s) and the lead commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. He is the current chair of the 7 leaders across all branches of the US military.

Bannon served 7 years in the US Navy in the late 70's and 80's and then went on to be a banker and journalist.

I know who I'd be appointing to advise me on national security issues.

The other interesting role, that of the Director of National Intelligence, makes for some reading when comparing the previous director and Trump's proposed director.

- James R. Clapper (previous director) prior to his appointment had been a director of two national intelligence agencies for 20 years and served in the US Air Force for 30 years before that.

- Dan Coats (proposed director) has been a career politician, ambassador for 4 years and served 2 years in the army in the 1960's.

Their CVs are chalk and cheese.

Creating a position for a Bannon on the NSC is by far the darker, more threatening and out of line move compared to a short-term migration review.

An argument could be made that Trump is an ideological puppet and Bannon pulls the string. I'm really interested in how they come across each other and decided to work together.