Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
When I was a teenager and was learning about Fascism, what it was, the ideology, and how it was perpetuated in Europe I used to wonder if I would have been a fascist? There were parts of it that I could see as being alluring.
1. Efficiency as business and government partner closely together.
2. The focus on action and aggressive action to move your goals forward.
3. Focus on strong central authority.
4. Being able to blame others for your problems.
I can safely say in 2016, after hearing people espouse fascist and Authoritarian doctrines since 9/11/01 that I would not in fact have been a Fascist at any point in my life. That is one of life's questions i have been able to answer and am happy to know about myself.
Now, I have to determine if I would have fallen for being a Red Guard or Khymer Rouge.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Summary of things I have learned from this thread:
-Catholics are not Christians
-Banning Muslims from entry into the US is legal and not unconstitutional
-But the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens anyway
-Calling Mexican immigrants criminals and characterizing Mexican immigrants as criminals/drug mules/rapists is not racist or bigoted
-Trump is not a politician despite investing heavily in politics, repeatedly pandering to various groups, changing his positions constantly, and running for the presidency
Kilkrazy wrote: That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.
I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.
Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.
and I repeat, what other candidate comes close to what I desire?
Kilkrazy wrote: The Constitution actually refers to the government of the US. not the citizens
Any person in the continental US or a US overseas territory covered by the constitution is granted the protections provided by the constitution whether a citizen or not.
Actually you are wrong here is the preamble of the constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
where on that does it say, people visiting the US? or people dropping by or breaking into the US? it does not, it says "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.
Do you believe it is right or wrong?
doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.
You cannot obey an illegal law. You should know that. "Just following orders" will put you in the clink or the hangman.
think you are confusing an order with the law, the law is not an order which can break the law, it is the law. also no such thing as an illegal law when it comes to the Government. in fact if you do not follow the law illegal or not, you will get into trouble.
xraytango wrote: Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.
Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.
lets face it people go after illegal Mexicans and others from south of the border because it is easier to pick them out, but on the other hand there is also discrimination from both sides too, if a Hispanic woman in San Francisco (has a job and everything) is being deported for being here illegally there will be a big ruckus and furor over it and people being accused of being racist and bigoted and such, but now if it was a white European woman instead you wouldn't hear a peep from those same groups. (this actually happened too. barely got a one paragraph comment anywhere.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 13:54:14
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
jmurph wrote: Summary of things I have learned from this thread:
(snip)
Anything I missed?
Now we're on "when a hispanic woman gets deported, it's a big ruckus, but if a white woman does, no one cares".
Since there were approximately 400,000 deportations last year, it's surprising the media has time to report on anything else, what with reporting on the 1,100 deportations a day and all.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
jmurph wrote: Summary of things I have learned from this thread:
(snip)
Anything I missed?
Now we're on "when a hispanic woman gets deported, it's a big ruckus, but if a white woman does, no one cares".
Since there were approximately 400,000 deportations last year, it's surprising the media has time to report on anything else, what with reporting on the 1,100 deportations a day and all.
i'm not talking about deportations anywhere else, but a deportation in San Francisco a sanctuary city that did not offer sanctuary to a white illegal alien.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.
I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.
Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.
Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.
jmurph wrote: Summary of things I have learned from this thread:
-Catholics are not Christians
-Banning Muslims from entry into the US is legal and not unconstitutional
-But the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens anyway
-Calling Mexican immigrants criminals and characterizing Mexican immigrants as criminals/drug mules/rapists is not racist or bigoted
-Trump is not a politician despite investing heavily in politics, repeatedly pandering to various groups, changing his positions constantly, and running for the presidency
Anything I missed?
One more thing-Canadian bacon is not, in fact, bacon.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jmurph wrote: Summary of things I have learned from this thread:
-Catholics are not Christians
-Banning Muslims from entry into the US is legal and not unconstitutional
-But the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens anyway
-Calling Mexican immigrants criminals and characterizing Mexican immigrants as criminals/drug mules/rapists is not racist or bigoted
-Trump is not a politician despite investing heavily in politics, repeatedly pandering to various groups, changing his positions constantly, and running for the presidency
Anything I missed?
One more thing-Canadian bacon is not, in fact, bacon.
nooooo say it isn't soooo.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.
I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.
Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.
Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.
I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.
Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.
and I repeat, what other candidate comes close to what I desire?
Kilkrazy wrote: The Constitution actually refers to the government of the US. not the citizens
Any person in the continental US or a US overseas territory covered by the constitution is granted the protections provided by the constitution whether a citizen or not.
Actually you are wrong here is the preamble of the constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
where on that does it say, people visiting the US? or people dropping by or breaking into the US? it does not, it says "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.
Do you believe it is right or wrong?
doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.
You cannot obey an illegal law. You should know that. "Just following orders" will put you in the clink or the hangman.
think you are confusing an order with the law, the law is not an order which can break the law, it is the law. also no such thing as an illegal law when it comes to the Government. in fact if you do not follow the law illegal or not, you will get into trouble.
xraytango wrote: Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.
Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.
lets face it people go after illegal Mexicans and others from south of the border because it is easier to pick them out, but on the other hand there is also discrimination from both sides too, if a Hispanic woman in San Francisco (has a job and everything) is being deported for being here illegally there will be a big ruckus and furor over it and people being accused of being racist and bigoted and such, but now if it was a white European woman instead you wouldn't hear a peep from those same groups. (this actually happened too. barely got a one paragraph comment anywhere.)
Trumpo won't manage to come close to what you want, he's just telling you a story you like hearing in order to get you to vote for him.
The people wrote the constitution to form a government that is limited by the constitution. The constitution limits the government's power. The government for example can't search people's houses without a warrant or prevent them practicing their religion. This applies to everyone within the purview of the government whatever citizenship they may hold.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/02 14:30:01
Kilkrazy wrote: That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.
I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.
Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.
Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.
Do you want to ban all Muslims?
We talking refugee asylum or actual immigration? Not aiming that directly at you Kil but for gawdsake clarify the subject with the rest of them. IIRC he Trump made that comment after Obama agreed to bring a huge number of Muslim Refugee's with barely to no vetting of those arriving in Europe.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Trumpo won't manage to come close to what you want, he's just telling you a story you like hearing in order to get you to vote for him.
The people wrote the constitution to form a government that is limited by the constitution. The constitution limits the government's power. The government for example can't search people's houses without a warrant or prevent them practicing their religion. This applies to everyone within the purview of the government whatever citizenship they may hold.
of course not, but you avoid the question, what other candidate comes closer to what I want?
also you are wrong about the warrant too, look up rights of felons on probation and parole, no search warrants needed to search their places.
also the government has given the president the power to enforce its laws, which include keeping out illegals. he can use anything and everything to keep them out since it is upholding the law of the land. furthermore the constitution applies to only the people of the United States of America.
We talking refugee asylum or actual immigration? Not aiming that directly at you Kil but for gawdsake clarify the subject with the rest of them. IIRC he Trump made that comment after Obama agreed to bring a huge number of Muslim Refugee's with barely to no vetting of those arriving in Europe.
people have a tendency to gloss over things that are said when something occurs. meanwhile I find it ironic that Obama was also trying to send money to another country so they could build a wall/fence to keep out said refugees.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 14:29:25
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.
Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.
So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.
People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."
Kilkrazy wrote: At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.
Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.
So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.
People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."
already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.
I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.
Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.
Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.
equating communists with All Muslims= does not compute.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 14:34:01
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote: At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.
Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.
So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.
People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."
already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.
The Wiener Dog Party Platform #2 Rule:
*Ban all Cat People
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote: At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.
Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.
So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.
People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."
already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.
Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.
Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?
The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years? Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.
And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.
Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.
So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.
People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."
already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.
To confirm, you want to ban all Muslims.
muslim, protestent, Catholic, Jewish, what have you, keep em out till better vetted, but more concerned with Muslim terrorists (not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but in America it seems all Terrorists have been Muslim as of late), since have heard of any Irish terrorists or the dreaded Jewish terrorist striking lately, but other then Muslims would also like to throw emphasis on banning any and all Catholic Priests too.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.
Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.
So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.
People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."
already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.
Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.
Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?
The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years? Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.
And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.
so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.
Now here's something I can get behind. Don't discriminate, be mean to everyone!
so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.
San Bernardino as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 14:48:46
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Now here's something I can get behind. Don't discriminate, be mean to everyone!
so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.
San Bernardino as well.
San Bernardino was done by locals who committed to the beliefs, but technically think she was from outside of the country, and she might have been the ring leader, hard to call so went with definites.
but remember the guy my response is for thinks ted Bundy was a terrorist, me thinks he needs to check the definition of terrorist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 14:53:25
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
lets face it people go after illegal Mexicans and others from south of the border because it is easier to pick them out, but on the other hand there is also discrimination from both sides too, if a Hispanic woman in San Francisco (has a job and everything) is being deported for being here illegally there will be a big ruckus and furor over it and people being accused of being racist and bigoted and such, but now if it was a white European woman instead you wouldn't hear a peep from those same groups. (this actually happened too. barely got a one paragraph comment anywhere.)
People go after Mexicans and other people from Central and South America because they make for a convenient racial underclass. White Europeans are not as a group hounded by the authorities or hung up in media channels as some vast, amorphous threat to white American security, jobs and women.
also to make note I erred in saying all terrorists recently were Muslim when that is not true they have been Muslim and Islamic recently with Islamic being more prevalant as of late.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.
Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.
So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.
People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."
already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.
Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.
Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in. You know how you can tell that?
The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years? Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.
And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.
so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.
Question: How many foreign nationals of Muslim faith come into the country every day?
So you can come up with two examples off the top of your head. That's two examples in how many years with how many people coming into the country?
The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.
The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.
Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.
Do you actually know what the definition of terrorism is?
Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations 2nd Edition The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
There's three definitions used by US government agencies.
Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists. They took over Malheur, promised violence if the government evicted them, and generally continued to make threats and try to push a political agenda.
YOU might not agree, but you have no clue what in the world you're talking about.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/02 15:55:20
San Bernardino was done by locals who committed to the beliefs, but technically think she was from outside of the country, and she might have been the ring leader, hard to call so went with definites.
The wife was from Palestine, and not Palestine, Texas. There is now evidence they were part of a network that intended to shoot up freeways and attack nearby universities.
Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists.
Best phrase of the morning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 15:24:43
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Now here’s an interesting evolution: When the State Department was first pressed on why a tough question from Fox News correspondent James Rosen was missing from a Dec. 2, 2013, press briefing, a spokeswoman attributed the matter to a “glitch.” “There was a glitch in the State Department video,” said State’s Elizabeth Trudeau at a briefing in mid-May.
A different story issued today from the State Department’s podium. Asked about the situation, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs John Kirby said that an internal probe into the matter had revealed that a “specific request was made to excise” the video.
Given the circumstances of the disappearance, that is not a shock.
To review the facts: In February 2013, Rosen posed a prescient question to then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland: Was the U.S. government engaged in “secret, bilateral” discussions with Iran? No, came the response from Nuland. By December of that year, rumors surfaced that such Iran-United States talks had indeed been ongoing. So Rosen, in a Dec. 2, 2013, session, asked then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki about it:
QUESTION: Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?
MS. PSAKI: James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that. Obviously, we have made clear and laid out a number of details in recent weeks about discussions and about a bilateral channel that fed into the P5+1 negotiations, and we’ve answered questions on it, we’ve confirmed details. We’re happy to continue to do that, but clearly, this was an important component leading up to the agreement that was reached a week ago.
Fireworks!
As anyone following the current presidential campaign knows quite well, the Obama administration succeeded in getting a nuclear deal with Iran. It entered into force in January, and in recent months has kicked up a fair bit of dissent. In a piece published in the New York Times Magazine, David Samuels profiled Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes and ripped the administration for laying out an “actively misleading” timeline for the deal:
The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before [President Hassan] Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
After Samuels’s story kicked up a Washington mediastorm, Rosen asked a colleague to check for the video of Psaki answering his question about diplomatic mendacity. The colleague came back with an eerie response: The exchange was gone from the videotape, replaced by a flash of white light. The gap was evident not only on the State Department website, but also on its YouTube page. State Department officials, in a series of briefings, struggled to explain the matter. Trudeau talked about a glitch but also noted that there was no evidence that this glitch had selectively attacked any other embarrassing moments from the press briefings. Kirby later expressed deep concern about the subject.
Today, Kirby brought the goods:
A portion of the State Department’s December 2nd, 2013 press briefing was missing from the video that we posted on our YouTube account and on our website. That missing portion covered a series of questions about U.S negotiations with Iran. When alerted to this, I immediately directed the video to be restored in its entirety with a full and complete copy that exists and had existed since the day of the briefing on the Defense Video and Imagery Distribution system website otherwise known as DIVIDS. I also verified that the full transcript of the briefing which we also post on our website was intact and had been so since the date of the briefing. I asked the office of the legal advisor to look at this including a look at any rules that we had in place. In so doing, they learned that a specific request was made to excise that portion of the briefing. We do not know who made the request to edit the video or why it was made. To my surprise, the Bureau of Public Affairs did not have in place any rules governing this type of action therefore we are taking immediate steps to craft appropriate protocols on this issue as we believe that deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency and public accountability. Specifically, we are going to make clear that all video and transcripts from daily press briefings will be immediately and permanently archived in their entirety. In the unlikely event, that narrow compelling circumstances require edits to be made such as the inadvertent release of privacy protected information, they will only be made with the expressed permission of the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs and with an appropriate level of annotation and disclosure. I have communicated this new policy to my staff and it takes effect immediately.
Those are worthy commitments, for the future.
As for the past, more must be known — though it probably won’t. Followup questions to Kirby drilled in on the whodunnit aspect of the video disappearance. Would the department do more investigating to determine precisely how this happened? No, said Kirby, who noted that the individual who received the phone request for video elimination doesn’t remember “anything other than that the caller was passing on the request from somewhere else in the bureau.” Furthermore, said Kirby, “There were no rules in place to govern this sort of action, so while I believe it was an inappropriate step to take, I see little foundation for pressing forward with a formal investigation.” Spoken like a true bureaucrat.
Someone sought to upend government transparency at the State Department. This blog, accordingly, sees “massive foundation for pressing forward with a formal investigation.”
Update: From former State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki: “I had no knowledge of nor would I have approved of any form of editing or cutting my briefing transcript on any subject while at the State Department. I believe deeply in providing the press as much information on important issues as possible.”
And they couldn't determine who made that "specific request was made to excise that portion of the briefing.".
Man this administration has issues with those "youtube videos".
The Truth is Out there!
