Because the reason oil companies have been making record profits is because production was not cheaper?

Is that the argument being made? Oil faced with higher costs = higher profits,therefore lower costs = lower profits?

Well, they wrote some letters. There's nothing more the nations law makers can do to protect citizens from corporate greed and price gouging. /s

Misleading title. He never blamed the media for their losses.

He was asked "how he can get everyone in the locker room to keep believing in their team and season" and his answer was basically to not listen to negative press which I would agree as being a great first step in trying to keep spirits high.

WLFI has a current value of $0.0000000000034 USD.

That's about 3 billion WLFI for 1 penny. What a deal!

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

Hmm, that was not my intent at all. Is there a more appropriate or accurate word you can suggest for somebody that does not fit nicely into either of the two popular US political Ideologies and depending on the topic will either side with a party (which party depends on the topic) or think that nobody has presented a good idea?

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at that link.

What "narrow sense"? I literally just said "Moderate, not liberal nor conservative."

To keep this on topic:

You asked why people say that it is a "right wing taking point" when you say "it's fucked up that more money is going to Isntreal than to hurricane relief" and the answer is that you are using a topic Republicans don't want scrutinized as you counter point thus directing the conversation away from what Republicans are trying to avoid. You could have used health care, education, VA benefits, or something more ambiguous. Instead you use an active topic that could erode Republican support and steer the conversation away from a Republican sore spot and towards a Democrat sore spot.

That is why some people are calling it out as a "right wing taking point". I'm simply trying to answer your question.

Interesting. I have not had the word "lib" explained in such a way. I am more familiar with "snowflake" being used in that context.

I believe that most people associate the word "lib" with a political ideology and by using it you are, even if unwittingly, saying that you think one party is better than the other and should be in power.

I agree and share in your disgust of the current government of the USA. Neither party seems interested in helping the American people unless it profits them directly.

To stay focused on your original question, this is why people think statements comparing disaster relief to genocide is a Republican talking point.

The conversation has shifted from who voted for or against providing federal assistance to how the US uses its military and the genocide being committed by Isreal. Without trying to take a side on either topic, this sort of misdirection is the purpose of such statements.

You don't believe me?

Did you just call Trump and the entire Republican party libs?

Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people

I totally agree. The current political climate is very much one of "why try to solve a problem when you can profit off of it."

My issue is in the choice of language. Trying to make it seem like one party is to blame when both are.

The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much

There is a difference between direct and indirect connections. In this instance, the aid sent to Isreal has no direct or immediate impact of federal aid to the communities impacted by the hurricanes. It is, however, connected in that it shows the priorities of current legislators.

Did they try when they had a majority and could’ve pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren’t serious about passing anything that helps people

I am very confused by this argument. Are you suggesting that if a party does not push legislation when they have control over both houses then they should never try to pass it in the future, or that conditions and opinions are not allowed to change resulting in a shift of priorities? Please, can you expand on what you mean by this?

Moderate, not liberal nor conservative.

stop sending money and weapons and troops to Israel, and send emergency aid to communities hurt by the hurricanes.

Unfortunately, these are two completely separate pools of money. The USA could stop all military aid to all countries across the globe tomorrow and the freed up money could not be redirected to the communities impacted by the hurricanes without an act of Congress which, thanks to Republicans, just said no to doing that.

In my opinion:

Short version:

Republicans don't want to talk about how they denied the funding to help Americans impacted by disasters, so they are attempting to shift the narrative.

The longer version:

First, because the point does not include of how Republicans voted against funding FEMA while taking no action to restrict the transfers of arms to Isreal (unless there has been a resolution that I am not aware of). This makes it something of a disingenuous argument attempting to spread the narrative that "Democrats support genocide more than the they support struggling American citizens".

Second, it is an attempt to tie two unrelated events together to keep topics damaging to the Democrat election machine alive while the news cycle has shifted to a topic that could hurt the Republicans election machine.

Third, it offers no suggestions for how to correct either situation. Nor examples of failed / blocked attempts from either party to remedy the situation. Attempts like the Democrats attempt to increase funding to FEMA which was blocked by Republicans.

Didn't Google try this a decade ago with Google Glass, but recieved such a negative response over privacy concerns that it abandoned the project.

Am I remembering this wrong? Have people's views on privacy changed to the point where this is acceptable? Does Meta not have the features that Google did which prompted to backlash?