whembly wrote: Then you need to re-calibrate that "anti-bull gak" detector scooty. Because, if I'm not mistaken, that's the same spin pushed by media matters.
Actually, I pulled that transcript of her address from The Washington Post.
The context doesn't help at all... She is still saying, "The law is good, and the benefits will prove themselves worthy... TRUST US".
Actually, context is everything. Why I am I not surprised that small snippets of speeches exist only in a vacuum to you? Also, do you personally demand to read every bill that's put to vote in Congress or do you trust your elected officials to read it and vote for you? (You know, fulfilling the job they were elected to do).
Whatever happen to careful deliberation and informing the public?
Who exactly are you addressing here?
The Democrats made their bed and will take their beating until the PPACA is repealed or reformed to look nothing like as it is now.
That has nothing to do with you and your Fox News overlords taking a sentence out of context.
Your BS meter needs calibration, because it appears to be stuck at:
Right, because I provided you the context of the statement that you chose to ignore, I'm the one whose bull gak meter is stuck on "peak." This is just another one of those things on the long list of items where your version of the events (in reality, the one given to you by Fox News) is the only one that matters, regardless of what information is given to you that might challenge your narrative.
Oh sorry... I shouldn't have said that, I don't want you to feel persecuted!
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Actually, context is everything. Why I am I not surprised that small snippets of speeches exist only in a vacuum to you? Also, do you personally demand to read every bill that's put to vote in Congress or do you trust your elected officials to read it and vote for you? (You know, fulfilling the job they were elected to do).
Most of this debate took place before I moved to the US so the coverage was perhaps not as clear, but it was my recollection that Pelosi said that it had to be passed before they found out what was in it meaning that her fellow Senators did not have the full law available. If that was the case does that not fly in the notion that the Senators are supposed to read every law on behalf of the public?
Most of this debate took place before I moved to the US so the coverage was perhaps not as clear, but it was my recollection that Pelosi said that it had to be passed before they found out what was in it meaning that her fellow Senators did not have the full law available. If that was the case does that not fly in the notion that the Senators are supposed to read every law on behalf of the public?
The joke was that Senators weren't reading the bills they were passing before voting on them, not that they didn't have the full law available (though the later would be more true to what Pelosi was getting at when she made the statement).
"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
Her gaffe is a very lacking in eloquence statement about the nature of the Congress and it's habit of debating (often to the point of inanity) every little detail of a bill, all while constantly tacking on amendments to everything under the sun (creating more debate), including things that had absolutely nothing to do with Health Care Reform (creating more amendments). Literally, Congress could not know what the ACA would look like until it stopped debating/amending the bill and passed it.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Actually, context is everything. Why I am I not surprised that small snippets of speeches exist only in a vacuum to you? Also, do you personally demand to read every bill that's put to vote in Congress or do you trust your elected officials to read it and vote for you? (You know, fulfilling the job they were elected to do).
Most of this debate took place before I moved to the US so the coverage was perhaps not as clear, but it was my recollection that Pelosi said that it had to be passed before they found out what was in it meaning that her fellow Senators did not have the full law available. If that was the case does that not fly in the notion that the Senators are supposed to read every law on behalf of the public?
Just a minor clarification. Nancy Pelosi has never been a US Senator. She's the Representative of California's 12th District, is the House Minority Leader, and IIRC, at the time of the quote that is being debated, was the Speaker of the House.
I want to say that part of the problem was also that the bills in the house and senate were a little different (which is normal) so they would have to pass different versions (which is normal) in order to sent it to reconciliation committee (which is normal) to create a bill that is different from both the house and senate versions (which is normal) so that both chambers can have a final bill to vote on (which is normal).
So the house and the senate had to pass their respective bills to get a final bill back to vote on it. So they actually wouldn't know for sure what will be in the final bill until they vote on it. Which is again normal and how congress works.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Actually, context is everything. Why I am I not surprised that small snippets of speeches exist only in a vacuum to you? Also, do you personally demand to read every bill that's put to vote in Congress or do you trust your elected officials to read it and vote for you? (You know, fulfilling the job they were elected to do).
Most of this debate took place before I moved to the US so the coverage was perhaps not as clear, but it was my recollection that Pelosi said that it had to be passed before they found out what was in it meaning that her fellow Senators did not have the full law available. If that was the case does that not fly in the notion that the Senators are supposed to read every law on behalf of the public?
Just a minor clarification. Nancy Pelosi has never been a US Senator. She's the Representative of California's 12th District, is the House Minority Leader, and IIRC, at the time of the quote that is being debated, was the Speaker of the House.
Yes. If you're unable to afford such a car, given your job, then you are doing something wrong.
You know nothing dogma and you're using this as a backhanded slight.
I'm done with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I want to say that part of the problem was also that the bills in the house and senate were a little different (which is normal) so they would have to pass different versions (which is normal) in order to sent it to reconciliation committee (which is normal) to create a bill that is different from both the house and senate versions (which is normal) so that both chambers can have a final bill to vote on (which is normal).
So the house and the senate had to pass their respective bills to get a final bill back to vote on it. So they actually wouldn't know for sure what will be in the final bill until they vote on it. Which is again normal and how congress works.
(Insert "I'm just a bill" video)
It is a problem.
Something of this magnitude should've been given a chance that all parties and the public reviews this law.
So, instead, this was rammed through and we ended with this gak sammich.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Right, because I provided you the context of the statement that you chose to ignore, I'm the one whose bull gak meter is stuck on "peak." This is just another one of those things on the long list of items where your version of the events (in reality, the one given to you by Fox News) is the only one that matters, regardless of what information is given to you that might challenge your narrative.
Oh sorry... I shouldn't have said that, I don't want you to feel persecuted!
Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
Nah...
Enjoy your Thanksgiving and eat an extra punkin pie for me!
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Right, because I provided you the context of the statement that you chose to ignore, I'm the one whose bull gak meter is stuck on "peak." This is just another one of those things on the long list of items where your version of the events (in reality, the one given to you by Fox News) is the only one that matters, regardless of what information is given to you that might challenge your narrative.
Oh sorry... I shouldn't have said that, I don't want you to feel persecuted!
Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
Nah...
So do you have any counter point or evidence as to why you created a false statement by omitting context or do you admit that what you said was not the truth?
whembly wrote: Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
I've retyped and retyped what I'm about to post like 8 times but the truth is, I'm realizing that every time you do this and someone points out how context works (i.e. in this case the previous 2 sentences clearly explain what he meant), then they're sort of the problem too. We're the problem. At some point, we need to stop being Charlie Brown to your Lucy setting up a poop-filled football.
This thread is a living, breathing monument to why this subforum should be shut down. Reasonable debates come here to die.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Right, because I provided you the context of the statement that you chose to ignore, I'm the one whose bull gak meter is stuck on "peak." This is just another one of those things on the long list of items where your version of the events (in reality, the one given to you by Fox News) is the only one that matters, regardless of what information is given to you that might challenge your narrative.
Oh sorry... I shouldn't have said that, I don't want you to feel persecuted!
Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
Nah...
Right, because to you all things exist in a vacuum because "context" is a word you either don't seem to understand or just willfully ignore. (I'm betting it's actually both of those things; you don't understand it so you choose to ignore it... problem solved!).
Though I'm sure you consider yourself to be such an informed voter, quite literally everything you type here proves you otherwise. In other words: garbage in, garbage out.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving and eat an extra punkin pie for me!
I'm at work for Thanksgiving so I don't get to enjoy it like most of you and I don't eat pumpkin pie because pumpkins taste like gak.
whembly wrote: Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
I've retyped and retyped what I'm about to post like 8 times but the truth is, I'm realizing that every time you do this and someone points out how context works (i.e. in this case the previous 2 sentences clearly explain what he meant), then they're sort of the problem too. We're the problem. At some point, we need to stop being Charlie Brown to your Lucy setting up a poop-filled football.
This thread is a living, breathing monument to why this subforum should be shut down. Reasonable debates come here to die.
Dear lord guys... can't ya'll take a *hint*?
EDIT: against my better judgement, here's the distinction. I *know* he meant the roads and bridges, not the business itself. Here's the problem. It's the fact that he basically confirmed (as expected) his political viewpoints that sees government as the solution to *everything*. Only someone who thinks government is the answer would bring that up on a campaign trail.... those words contained an undertone that business owners are selfish, that they are ungrateful toward those teachers who helped them along the way.
But, go ahead and chaulk that up as some "Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)".... lord knows I've targeted those who exhibited the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I'm at work for Thanksgiving so I don't get to enjoy it like most of you and I don't eat pumpkin pie because pumpkins taste like gak.
I appreciate the sentiment though.
Bummer you had to work.
So... pecan pie for the win?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: At this point it just feels like work. Let's just take off until Christmas and see what happens! A cleanse of sorts!
whembly wrote: It's the fact that he basically confirmed (as expected) his political viewpoints that sees government as the solution to *everything*. Only someone who thinks government is the answer would bring that up on a campaign trail....
Err, no. Not at all. Saying "acknowledge the help you have received" is not the same thing as saying "the government is the solution to everything". Seriously, you're going beyond merely being wrong and into not even having conclusions that follow from your premises. You've left behind claiming that 1+1=3 and moved into 1+1=SDLKFGJOISEOR.
those words contained an undertone that business owners are selfish, that they are ungrateful toward those teachers who helped them along the way.
Yes, because it's true. Some business owners, especially conservative/libertarian business owners, are selfish and ungrateful. They'll tell you all about how they succeeded on their own merits and shouldn't have to pay taxes or fund "welfare" programs, and completely ignore the fact that they benefit from roads/schools/power/etc that the government provides.
Trust me, I'm not bothered in the least bit. By working today and tomorrow (also a paid holiday for us), my check next week will almost be double a normal check. It was worth it to sit around at work, watch YouTube videos, a couple episodes of The Man in the High Castle, and argue with you because it essential paid for my kids' Christmas gifts.
So... pecan pie for the win?
I dare say pecans might worse than pumpkin. Really though, it boils down to the fact that I just hate pie.
Its not even a matter of economy or the constitution with the current climate and the shift of the republican party to the right. The most mellow candidate(who stands a chance of winning, sorry Rand) in the republican primaries has attended a conference where a "kill the gays" pastor was an important speaker.
On one hand you have a potential screw up because the government hasn't had experience in a sector they are managing.
Trust me, I'm not bothered in the least bit. By working today and tomorrow (also a paid holiday for us), my check next week will almost be double a normal check. It was worth it to sit around at work, watch YouTube videos, a couple episodes of The Man in the High Castle, and argue with you because it essential paid for my kids' Christmas gifts.
Good for you buddy.
So... pecan pie for the win?
I dare say pecans might worse than pumpkin. Really though, it boils down to the fact that I just hate pie.
And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
I wonder if his poll numbers will go up even higher among GOP primary voters?
It is so depressing that I think it actually will.
Okay... I don't get the impression that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability.
Trump was *mocking* the reporter, don't get me wrong, as it's along the same tactic he used with others.
But, this dogpile is bizzare and unfortunately feeds into the ridiculous narrative that everyone is so unfair to Trump. Thus he'll enjoy a bump in the polls.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
I wonder if his poll numbers will go up even higher among GOP primary voters?
It is so depressing that I think it actually will.
Okay... I don't get the impression that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability.
Trump was *mocking* the reporter, don't get me wrong, as it's along the same tactic he used with others.
But, this dogpile is bizzare and unfortunately feeds into the ridiculous narrative that everyone is so unfair to Trump. Thus he'll enjoy a bump in the polls.
Ya'll should feel bad for making me defend Trump.
Naw brah, he very much did diliberately mock Serge Kovaleski's disability. Let's not be PC here and defend Trump's actions. He is a mean spirited person that attracts mean spirited people.
So yes he will see a jump in the polls because he does precisely what horrible people want to see.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
I wonder if his poll numbers will go up even higher among GOP primary voters?
It is so depressing that I think it actually will.
Okay... I don't get the impression that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability. (this needs to be a meme like all those Russian memes)
Trump was *mocking* the reporter, don't get me wrong, as it's along the same tactic he used with others.
But, this dogpile is bizzare and unfortunately feeds into the ridiculous narrative that everyone is so unfair to Trump. Thus he'll enjoy a bump in the polls.
Ya'll should feel bad for making me defend Trump.
Naw brah, he very much did diliberately mock Serge Kovaleski's disability. Let's not be PC here and defend Trump's actions. He is a mean spirited person that attracts mean spirited people.
So yes he will see a jump in the polls because he does precisely what horrible people want to see.
Let's be honest here...
He mocks you because he’s Trump and you’re a loser.... or something.
He's one narcissist donkey-cave that's for sure and I hope he faces a humilating defeat soon.
But, this dogpile is bizzare and unfortunately feeds into the ridiculous narrative that everyone is so unfair to Trump. Thus he'll enjoy a bump in the polls.
If someone wanted to be really unfair to Trump they would bring up Katie Rees, and juxtapose his response to her behavior with that of Tara Conner.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
I wonder if his poll numbers will go up even higher among GOP primary voters?
It is so depressing that I think it actually will.
Okay... I don't get the impression that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability. (this needs to be a meme like all those Russian memes)
Trump was *mocking* the reporter, don't get me wrong, as it's along the same tactic he used with others.
But, this dogpile is bizzare and unfortunately feeds into the ridiculous narrative that everyone is so unfair to Trump. Thus he'll enjoy a bump in the polls.
Ya'll should feel bad for making me defend Trump.
Naw brah, he very much did diliberately mock Serge Kovaleski's disability. Let's not be PC here and defend Trump's actions. He is a mean spirited person that attracts mean spirited people.
So yes he will see a jump in the polls because he does precisely what horrible people want to see.
Let's be honest here...
He mocks you because he’s Trump and you’re a loser.... or something.
He's one narcissist donkey-cave that's for sure and I hope he faces a humilating defeat soon.
I don't see it. America's slimy underbelly that we refused to believe exists is finally rearing its ugly head. The US has had a resurgence of extremism I think and most of us never noticed it.
Trump will duke it out until he either wins or is told by the people he is not allowed to fight anymore. His level of narcissism will allow nothing less.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
I wonder if his poll numbers will go up even higher among GOP primary voters?
It is so depressing that I think it actually will.
Okay... I don't get the impression that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability.
Trump was *mocking* the reporter, don't get me wrong, as it's along the same tactic he used with others.
But, this dogpile is bizzare and unfortunately feeds into the ridiculous narrative that everyone is so unfair to Trump. Thus he'll enjoy a bump in the polls.
Ya'll should feel bad for making me defend Trump.
Did you actually watch the video? Because it's pretty clear he was parodying the reporter if you know anything about that reporter. He was doing a pretty clear mock impersonation.
Nobody's making you defend Trump, you are doing it of your own free will. Why, is absolutely beyond me.
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — An outspoken Florida Democratic congressman says he will file a lawsuit over Ted Cruz’s citizenship if the Texas senator is elected president.
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., told Fox News Radio he will “file that beautiful lawsuit” since Cruz was born in Canada.
“The Constitution says ‘natural born Americans.’ So now we’re counting Canadians as natural born Americans? How does that work?” Grayson questioned.
Cruz, whose mother is American and father Cuban, was born in Canada in 1970 and moved to Texas in 1974. The senator renounced his Canadian citizenry in 2014.
Grayson said Cruz isn’t an American.
“It’s not ‘The Biggest Loser’ that they’re choosing, it’s ‘The Biggest Bigot,'” Grayson told Fox News Radio. “In a sense, I guess, Cruz is not technically that way, because technically he’s not even an American.”
Cruz recently survived a challenge to appear on New Hampshire’s primary ballot.
The challenge against Cruz alleged he was ineligible to run for president because he was born in Canada.
Cruz’s mother was born in Delaware, giving him U.S. citizenship upon birth.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission rejected the challenge.
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — An outspoken Florida Democratic congressman says he will file a lawsuit over Ted Cruz’s citizenship if the Texas senator is elected president.
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., told Fox News Radio he will “file that beautiful lawsuit” since Cruz was born in Canada.
“The Constitution says ‘natural born Americans.’ So now we’re counting Canadians as natural born Americans? How does that work?” Grayson questioned.
Cruz, whose mother is American and father Cuban, was born in Canada in 1970 and moved to Texas in 1974. The senator renounced his Canadian citizenry in 2014.
Grayson said Cruz isn’t an American.
“It’s not ‘The Biggest Loser’ that they’re choosing, it’s ‘The Biggest Bigot,'” Grayson told Fox News Radio. “In a sense, I guess, Cruz is not technically that way, because technically he’s not even an American.”
Cruz recently survived a challenge to appear on New Hampshire’s primary ballot.
The challenge against Cruz alleged he was ineligible to run for president because he was born in Canada.
Cruz’s mother was born in Delaware, giving him U.S. citizenship upon birth.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission rejected the challenge.
Utterly pointless. To be a natural born US citizen one or both of your parents must be a US citizen. The fact that he was born in Canada has no bearing on his citizenship because his mother was a US citizen at the time. The 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to everyone born in the US wasn't ratified until 1868 so for the first 100 years none of the presidents were granted citizenship due to their birthplace and all of them were legally elected. There is no way for a reasonable and intelligent person to argue that the constitution was written to stipulate that only people born in the US were eligible to be PotUS when at the time being born in the US did not grant you US citizenship.
Just as bad as the whole mess with Obama's birth certificate. Politicians acting like children, seriously. If the guy gets elected in the first place then it is obviously not a significant enough issue to prevent it. If you really cared about the citizenship 'issue' then the time to bring it up would be when he announces he will run, not when he starts doing well or actually gets elected. Otherwise it just shows you are scrambling for ways to get rid of a president you personally don't like.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Just as bad as the whole mess with Obama's birth certificate. Politicians acting like children, seriously. If the guy gets elected in the first place then it is obviously not a significant enough issue to prevent it. If you really cared about the citizenship 'issue' then the time to bring it up would be when he announces he will run, not when he starts doing well or actually gets elected. Otherwise it just shows you are scrambling for ways to get rid of a president you personally don't like.
While I agree that it is childish you can't file suit without a grievance, and there is no law preventing American political parties from nominating an ineligible candidate.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Just as bad as the whole mess with Obama's birth certificate. Politicians acting like children, seriously. If the guy gets elected in the first place then it is obviously not a significant enough issue to prevent it. If you really cared about the citizenship 'issue' then the time to bring it up would be when he announces he will run, not when he starts doing well or actually gets elected. Otherwise it just shows you are scrambling for ways to get rid of a president you personally don't like.
While I agree that it is childish you can't file suit without a grievance, and there is no law preventing American political parties from nominating an ineligible candidate.
My point being that if one was concerned about the political process at hand, they would have brought up the ineligibility issue when that candidate entered the race. As it stands, its kind of like accusing an athlete of using steroids after they beat you, when before you didn't care.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I suspect that this may be intended to mock/satirize the whole Obama birth certificate thing rather than being a serious attempt to block Cruz.
“In a sense, I guess, Cruz is not technically that way — because technically he’s not even an American,” he said. “His mother was born here, so I guess like [President Barack] Obama, it’s interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz, who literally was born in another country and renounced his Canadian citizenry.”
NinthMusketeer wrote: Just as bad as the whole mess with Obama's birth certificate. Politicians acting like children, seriously. If the guy gets elected in the first place then it is obviously not a significant enough issue to prevent it. If you really cared about the citizenship 'issue' then the time to bring it up would be when he announces he will run, not when he starts doing well or actually gets elected. Otherwise it just shows you are scrambling for ways to get rid of a president you personally don't like.
While I agree that it is childish you can't file suit without a grievance, and there is no law preventing American political parties from nominating an ineligible candidate.
My point being that if one was concerned about the political process at hand, they would have brought up the ineligibility issue when that candidate entered the race. As it stands, its kind of like accusing an athlete of using steroids after they beat you, when before you didn't care.
True, if Grayson really thought Cruz was ineligible he could file a suit right now since Cruz has already declared.
Of course that issue while valid is also irrelevant to the fact that Grayson is deliberately perpetrating the obviously false narrative that Cruz is ineligible in order to pander to extremists and stroke his ego. The erroneous semantic game that "natural bornn" refers to being born in the US is farcical at face value. There is no requirement for PotUS candidates to be born in the US only that they be born with one or more US citizen parents and not be a naturalized citizen. Again, being born in the US didn't automatically convey citizenship until the 14th amendment was passed in 1868 so it's literally impossible for the Constitution to reference such a law when it was passed.
It's a non issue for Cruz just like it was for Obama.
NinthMusketeer wrote: My point being that if one was concerned about the political process at hand, they would have brought up the ineligibility issue when that candidate entered the race. As it stands, its kind of like accusing an athlete of using steroids after they beat you, when before you didn't care.
I don't know if Grayson was involved, but there was talk of Cruz's eligibility back in 2013 and again when he declared in March of 2015. Since Grayson is running for Rubio's vacated Senate seat, and has a history of making vitriolic comments about Republicans, his statement does make a degree of political sense.
True, if Grayson really thought Cruz was ineligible he could file a suit right now since Cruz has already declared.
Ineligible candidates can legally file for Presidential candidacy. All filing Form 2 does is register a candidates financial activity with the FEC. No one would have legitimate cause to bring suit until Cruz's hypothetical election as POTUS.
NinthMusketeer wrote: My point being that if one was concerned about the political process at hand, they would have brought up the ineligibility issue when that candidate entered the race. As it stands, its kind of like accusing an athlete of using steroids after they beat you, when before you didn't care.
I don't know if Grayson was involved, but there was talk of Cruz's eligibility back in 2013 and again when he declared in March of 2015. Since Grayson is running for Rubio's vacated Senate seat, and has a history of making vitriolic comments about Republicans, his statement does make a degree of political sense.
True, if Grayson really thought Cruz was ineligible he could file a suit right now since Cruz has already declared.
Ineligible candidates can legally file for Presidential candidacy. All filing Form 2 does is register a candidates financial activity with the FEC. No one would have legitimate cause to bring suit until Cruz's hypothetical election as POTUS.
Whenever suit is filed, if at all, it's still embarassingly frivolous and stupid. Filing a lawsuit on those grounds is just admitting that you either can't understand the plain English in the constitution or you just don't care.
Whenever suit is filed, if at all, it's still embarassingly frivolous and stupid. Filing a lawsuit on those grounds is just admitting that you either can't understand the plain English in the constitution or you just don't care.
The principle of jus sanguinis is not mentioned in the Constitution, it was first mentioned in Federal legislation in 1790.
Whenever suit is filed, if at all, it's still embarassingly frivolous and stupid. Filing a lawsuit on those grounds is just admitting that you either can't understand the plain English in the constitution or you just don't care.
The principle of jus sanguinis is not mentioned in the Constitution, it was first mentioned in Federal legislation in 1790.
I never said it was. I said there isn't anything in the Constitution that would support the claim that Cruz or Obama aren't eligible US citizens for holding office as president.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think we can all agree that its more of the same childish bickering that is now par for the course.
True. I'm not sure what's worse, the childish unprofessionalism of our politicians, the way its condoned and encouraged by the media or the fact that a large portion of the public happily laps it up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think we can all agree that its more of the same childish bickering that is now par for the course.
I mean, this is the guy who sent his supporters an email comparing the Tea Party to the KKK using the image of a burning cross as a stand-in for the "T". Not exactly a subtle guy.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think we can all agree that its more of the same childish bickering that is now par for the course.
Eh... let it go to the courts.
I think he'd actually be elected first to have any chance this traveling up to the Supreme Court.
At least this damned question can be resolved.
Ya'll remember that Congress had to pass a resolution in 2008 stating that John McCain was a natural born citizen. (McCain was born in Panama to a military family on assignment and his parents were both citizens.)
We wouldn't want to have Congress pass a resolution everytime this comes up... no?
I don't think it's a serious suggestion. More pointing out the hypocrisy that the majority of people that were claiming Obama wasn't eligible to be president are among the strongest supporters of Cruz but they aren't saying word one about it.
The State Department released another batch of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server, and with that more indications Clinton possessed classified information on her unsecured private account according to Ed Henry.
“The bigger picture, the broader point here is Hillary Clinton back in March said no classified information on this server and as we continue to see the drip-drip there are indications, of course, that there are dozens of those emails already come out that did have classified information,” Henry said.
Politico reported that between 200 and 300 emails were marked classified by the State Department from their October release, bringing the total number of messages now deemed classified between 600 and 700.
At the onset of her email scandal, Clinton assured the American people that there was no classified information sent or received on her private email address. She guaranteed that no sensitive information would be found on her server, and forcefully pushed back against accusations that her email set up was a national security risk.
After a CIA review revealed at least two emails on Clinton’s server possessed top-secret information, the Clinton campaign adjusted their story. Their new position was Clinton did not send or receive anything marked classified at the time.
“I did not send or receive any information marked classified. I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so,” Clinton said in response to the story.
State Department spokesperson John Kirby echoed the Clinton campaign’s talking points last month, pointing out that of the hundreds of messages now labeled classified, none of them “were marked classified at the time they were sent or received.”
Clinton’s email fiasco has plagued her campaign since her announcement. During the summer months, the Democratic frontrunner suffered her worst favorability rating ever because a majority of Americans do not believe she is honest or trustworthy.
“That has been an issue for this campaign and will no doubt continue to be one,” Henry said.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh, "Liar-In-Chief" is what we're referring to Hilary Clinton as now?
A) She's going to be the next President.
B) Yes, she's a fething liar.
Your disrespectful attitude to someone you have never met but only have a political beef with is despicable.
What? I can't hear you way up on your horse... here, use this:
You might need a bigger sound system.
This big enough?
Spoiler:
All that aside, I have to agree with both of y'all... Yes, HRC is a lying, two-faced good for nothin' (ask Monica) politician. And as Djones pointed out, there are major issues with her getting elected because of that dishonesty.
But, I think that there is a respectful way of disagreeing or calling out things that are wrong.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh, "Liar-In-Chief" is what we're referring to Hilary Clinton as now?
A) She's going to be the next President.
B) Yes, she's a fething liar.
Your disrespectful attitude to someone you have never met but only have a political beef with is despicable.
What? I can't hear you way up on your horse... here, use this:
You might need a bigger sound system.
This big enough?
Spoiler:
All that aside, I have to agree with both of y'all... Yes, HRC is a lying, two-faced good for nothin' (ask Monica) politician. And as Djones pointed out, there are major issues with her getting elected because of that dishonesty.
But, I think that there is a respectful way of disagreeing or calling out things that are wrong.
Hey... I'm just calling a spade as I see it.
Also, good call on that Mad Max system. It would definitely do the job.
This thread really is a Microcosm of american politics, Bicckering, insults, misdirections, character assasinations.
And those that have good ideas, get drowned out by the few.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This thread really is a Microcosm of american politics, Bicckering, insults, misdirections, character assasinations.
And those that have good ideas, get drowned out by the few.
No. I got your point, you're upset at people pointing out the truth that your chosen candidate is a lying scum bag.
Yeah okay. THAT'S my point.
My point wasn't that people like you and Whembly whine about people mocking the Republican candidates or digging into their past, and then you post filth like that.
You whine and whine and whine about a lack of respect from the President for the Republican party and how he shouldn't be calling them out for the crap they're pulling, and then you post trash like this.
The hypocrisy is staggering, and the lack of respect for an elected official(whether or not you voted for them) is HILARIOUS considering the nonsense that gets put out about things like people needing to show police respect just for the fact that they're police.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This thread really is a Microcosm of american politics, Bicckering, insults, misdirections, character assasinations.
And those that have good ideas, get drowned out by the few.
Politics has never been about good ideas. Power, wealth, control, these are key aspects of politics. "Good" ideas/policies/projects is subjective and is really just a matter of public relations and spin to help candidates win elections. None of our elected officials care about you or me or any random member of their electorate personally, that's not their job.
Tannhauser42 wrote: To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.
True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.
Iraq has WMDs.
Yes, Hillary did say that.
Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
No. I got your point, you're upset at people pointing out the truth that your chosen candidate is a lying scum bag.
Yeah okay. THAT'S my point.
My point wasn't that people like you and Whembly whine about people mocking the Republican candidates or digging into their past, and then you post filth like that.
You whine and whine and whine about a lack of respect from the President for the Republican party and how he shouldn't be calling them out for the crap they're pulling, and then you post trash like this.
The hypocrisy is staggering, and the lack of respect for an elected official(whether or not you voted for them) is HILARIOUS considering the nonsense that gets put out about things like people needing to show police respect just for the fact that they're police.
Respecting the Office of the President is NOT the same as respecting the man (or woman in 2017).
Tannhauser42 wrote: To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.
True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.
Iraq has WMDs.
Yes, Hillary did say that.
Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
That's Clinton saying Saddam had an obsession with WMDs, not that he had them, unless there's more context that's missing to that.
Tannhauser42 wrote: To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.
True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.
Iraq has WMDs.
Yes, Hillary did say that.
Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
That's Clinton saying Saddam had an obsession with WMDs, not that he had them, unless there's more context that's missing to that.
How do you suppose she intends to disarm him of WMDs she does not think he has?
Or could it be, she wants to disarm him of the WMDs she thinks he DOES have? And she clearly states he has a COMMITMENT to WMDs...
Come on, you really can't twist it the way you are trying to and expect to have credibility. Her words are there. Read them.
Yah, HRC considers the truth to be toxic at best. People who like the Dems need to move on from her, she is bad news bears.
HRC is like a Stephanie Myers protagonist. Nothing more than a garbage bag or people to project into.
What I'm getting at is while she is smarter than Trump she probably is going to be as bad in the end. Just a different flavor of bad. An while I would probably take HRC's flavor of evil over Trump I'd not want to live in a government ran by her.
True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.
I would argue that empty rhetoric such what you're employing is little better than lying. Hillary has lied, this is indisputable, but calling her the future Liar-in-Chief despite the fact that we aren't even through the primaries is also an attack on anyone that would vote for her.
This is such a pattern, you can't believe what she said she had for breakfast.
Studies have shown that most people can't accurately remember what they had for breakfast, but will almost always state with confidence that they can; with most of the exceptions stating that the control breakfast they ate during the study was nearly identical to what they eat every day. The point being, it is generally wise not to believe what someone says unless doing so is absolutely necessary to a contingent event which directly affects you. For example, believing someone when they say they will complete their portion of a group project on time.
Tannhauser42 wrote: To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.
True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.
Iraq has WMDs.
Yes, Hillary did say that.
Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
That's Clinton saying Saddam had an obsession with WMDs, not that he had them, unless there's more context that's missing to that.
How do you suppose she intends to disarm him of WMDs she does not think he has?
Or could it be, she wants to disarm him of the WMDs she thinks he DOES have? And she clearly states he has a COMMITMENT to WMDs...
Come on, you really can't twist it the way you are trying to and expect to have credibility. Her words are there. Read them.
She was saying she wanted Saddam to "disarm", you're the one claiming she wanted him to disarm WMDs. There's nothing in there that says she's talking about WMDs, which is why I asked for the broader context in which the comment was made. I don't have to spin anything, her words are, as you say, there.
Tannhauser42 wrote: To be fair, "liar-in-chief" pretty much applies to almost every president.
True... however, I'd argue that our future Liar-in-Chief takes the gold medal every time.
Iraq has WMDs.
Yes, Hillary did say that.
Hillary on March 6, 2003. wrote: "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
That's Clinton saying Saddam had an obsession with WMDs, not that he had them, unless there's more context that's missing to that.
How do you suppose she intends to disarm him of WMDs she does not think he has?
Or could it be, she wants to disarm him of the WMDs she thinks he DOES have? And she clearly states he has a COMMITMENT to WMDs...
Come on, you really can't twist it the way you are trying to and expect to have credibility. Her words are there. Read them.
She was saying she wanted Saddam to "disarm", you're the one claiming she wanted him to disarm WMDs. There's nothing in there that says she's talking about WMDs, which is why I asked for the broader context in which the comment was made. I don't have to spin anything, her words are, as you say, there.
Seriously? WTF do you suppose she means by 'disarm'?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here are some more of her words:
Hillary 10 October 2002 wrote:"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Videos from where those quotes came from:
Spoiler:
full speech:
The first quote I used is from this meeting with Code Pink folks (kind of hard to get through):
Puerto Rico Meets Debt Deadline but Warns of Tight Finances
Puerto Rico met its deadline for repaying $354 million in debt, the island’s development bank announced Tuesday, avoiding what some feared would be its first major default.
But it was unclear how long the payments would continue or whether the Commonwealth would meet other looming deadlines between now and Jan. 1.
The announcement of the repayments came as Gov. Alejandro García Padilla and other officials were testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering whether to give the island bankruptcy protection. The governor reiterated that Puerto Rico had run completely out of cash, and that as of Tuesday it was going to “claw back” certain revenues dedicated to paying debts, and use the money instead to provide government services and service general obligation bonds.
In his opening statement to the committee, the governor did not specify which types of debts would go unpaid as a result.
The statement from the development bank seemed to reflect the governor’s intentions.
“Today’s debt service payments reflect our commitment to honor our obligations notwithstanding the extreme fiscal challenges we face in an effort to facilitate a voluntary restructuring process with our creditors,” said the bank’s president, Melba Acosta Febo. “However, make no mistake, Puerto Rico’s liquidity position is severely constrained at this time despite the extraordinary measures the government has taken to improve it.”
The statement also said the governor had signed an executive order allowing the island “to begin redirecting certain revenues in light of recently revised revenue estimates and its deteriorating liquidity situation.”
“We have taken this difficult step in the trust that Congress will act soon,” Mr. García Padilla added, speaking slowly and clearly so his meaning would not be misunderstood. “But do not be misled. We have no resources left. Puerto Rico cannot keep this up longer.”
Tuesday’s hearing was the fifth so far this year in which various Congressional committees have taken testimony on what has caused Puerto Rico’s financial distress and what might be done about it. The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the federal bankruptcy law.
Puerto Rico owes roughly $72 billion to bondholders and at least $43 billion more to its governmental retirement system. Governor García Padilla has been saying since June that the government cannot pay that much debt and needs to restructure. But it cannot work out its debts in bankruptcy court because of its legal status as a territory. Governor García Padilla urged the Judiciary Committee to amend the bankruptcy law to give Puerto Rico that ability.
So far, the Republicans who control Congress have said they want to help Puerto Rico but cannot until it provides audited financial statements and reveals how much the assistance will cost.
The committee’s Republican chairman, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, said he had been “very troubled” to read in The New York Times on Monday that some of the governor’s advisers had been urging him to default, and said he wanted the governor to let him know whether that was true.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It really should be made a state. The 3.5 million people who live there have no representation.
Don't they have a single member in the House?
Anyhow... While I agree that PR should be a state, I have to wonder how much revenue that would bring in, how much it would cost to change the entire fething design of the national flag, how much federal assistance the new state would need (welfare, etc) that would offset any new revenue brought in.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It really should be made a state. The 3.5 million people who live there have no representation.
No disagreement. The issue of US Territories is something we've let go one for a long time without any real solutions. If we won't make them full states, their Congressional Delegates should at least be given voting rights.
Been doing reading and my guess at economic fethery looks about right. PR built its economy around exemptions and credits provided by the Internal Revenue Code that were discontinued in 1996. The loss of those protections sent their economy into a dive that it hasn't recovered from.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Anyhow... While I agree that PR should be a state, I have to wonder how much revenue that would bring in, how much it would cost to change the entire fething design of the national flag, how much federal assistance the new state would need (welfare, etc) that would offset any new revenue brought in.
People born in PR are natural born citizens, but they are not given equal representation in deciding the laws that will govern them. It's not a matter of what the US will gain from their statehood. It's a matter of living up to all that freedom stuff we're always talking about. If we refuse to give them proper representation, then we should relinquish the territory. The fate of the people on PR should not be subject to the convenience of the Continental US, unless we plan to go back to being an Imperial power.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Anyhow... While I agree that PR should be a state, I have to wonder how much revenue that would bring in, how much it would cost to change the entire fething design of the national flag, how much federal assistance the new state would need (welfare, etc) that would offset any new revenue brought in.
People born in PR are natural born citizens, but they are not given equal representation in deciding the laws that will govern them. It's not a matter of what the US will gain from their statehood. It's a matter of living up to all that freedom stuff we're always talking about. If we refuse to give them proper representation, then we should relinquish the territory. The fate of the people on PR should not be subject to the convenience of the Continental US, unless we plan to go back to being an Imperial power.
Ohh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you that they need to be a state for the simple reason that they are affected by many/most of our laws, but have no say in their creation. The financial aspect is just one small aspect (maybe not that small to some) that may be overlooked by some more, zealous types.
Hmm. Well we have 16 territories but the only ones with populations worth noting are Guam, American Samoa*, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and the Marianas. So tops, we need to add 5 more stars to the flag
Speaking of American Samoa, should probably fix that thing where they aren't born US citizens....
Redesigning the flag shouldn't be all that expensive. I'm sure the government would find a way to make it cost millions though. But pay me $250,000 and I'll knock it out in an afternoon.
And I'd bet all the flags which get flown at various government venues get replaced fairly often anyway, so its not like we weren't already paying for new flags constantly.
LordofHats wrote: Hmm. Well we have 16 territories but the only ones with populations worth noting are Guam, American Samoa*, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and the Marianas. So tops, we need to add 5 more stars to the flag
7 if we count the eventual annexation of Canada and Mexico following the war with China over the last oil fields in Alaska
Co'tor Shas wrote: It really should be made a state. The 3.5 million people who live there have no representation.
Don't they have a single member in the House?
Anyhow... While I agree that PR should be a state, I have to wonder how much revenue that would bring in, how much it would cost to change the entire fething design of the national flag, how much federal assistance the new state would need (welfare, etc) that would offset any new revenue brought in.
Yes, a non-voting member. They don't even get to vote in presidential elections (which, IIRC, the hold anyway, symbolically, because feth you congress). Which is yet another reason to drop the electoral congress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Redesigning the flag shouldn't be all that expensive. I'm sure the government would find a way to make it cost millions though. But pay me $250,000 and I'll knock it out in an afternoon.
And I'd bet all the flags which get flown at various government venues get replaced fairly often anyway, so its not like we weren't already paying for new flags constantly.
LordofHats wrote: Hmm. Well we have 16 territories but the only ones with populations worth noting are Guam, American Samoa*, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and the Marianas. So tops, we need to add 5 more stars to the flag
7 if we count the eventual annexation of Canada and Mexico following the war with China over the last oil fields in Alaska
Nah, we'll just combine groups of states to form 13 commonwealths. We even have a flag design.
PR already benefits from money allocated by the dept of ed and dept of ag & health/human svcs (welfare) so that shouldn't be a reason to not allow them statehood. Until recently, the locals voted down every statehood referendum that's regularly been put up for vote so after the recent passage, it's up to the feds to ratify statehood and finalize everything.
Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state. They keep voting it down every time it comes up in their legislature. Why would they? They get most of the rights of American citizens and pay none of the taxes.
Psienesis wrote: Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state. They keep voting it down every time it comes up in their legislature. Why would they? They get most of the rights of American citizens and pay none of the taxes.
Actually, the 2012 referendum on statehood passed. Now it's up to the Feds.
Psienesis wrote: Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state. They keep voting it down every time it comes up in their legislature. Why would they? They get most of the rights of American citizens and pay none of the taxes.
Don't they still pay Federal taxes?
And they're still subject to laws, laws which they have no say in. That could be an issue. And as was already mentioned they actually did vote Yes on the last memorandum.
Psienesis wrote: Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state. They keep voting it down every time it comes up in their legislature. Why would they? They get most of the rights of American citizens and pay none of the taxes.
Actually, the 2012 referendum on statehood passed. Now it's up to the Feds.
Yup. Just add an even number of states...
PR, Guan, Guantanimo Bay and US Virgin Island as new states.
Psienesis wrote: Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state. They keep voting it down every time it comes up in their legislature. Why would they? They get most of the rights of American citizens and pay none of the taxes.
Actually, the 2012 referendum on statehood passed. Now it's up to the Feds.
Technically, the process of how Congress grants statehood is not defined in the Constitution. Typically, a referendum on the issue in the territory is held (which happened), and the territory issues a petition to Congress requesting Statehood. The later has not happened to my knowledge.
So apparently some member of congress are trying to pull another anti-net neutrality stunt on us, with this little beauty stuck in the spending bill.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to regulate, directly or indirectly, the prices, other fees, or data caps and allowances (as such terms are described in paragraph 164 of the Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the matter of protecting and promoting the open Internet, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on February 26, 2015.
Basically, all information on the internet is equal, and not subject to the whims of ISPs, ect. That ISPs should not be allowed to control what we can access, and when we can access it. This should explain it better than I can.
Well, we currently exist in a net neutral world, so that's what that is like. There are really no pros for consumers in a non-net neutral world. As for cons of a non-net neutral world, that would allow for ISPs (verizon, time warner, comcast, ect) to slowdown, and even wholy restrict what sites you have acess to, allow them to charge you differnt amounts for differnt sights (i.e. You have to pay $X more to get the "streaming" service which would get you youtube, hulu, netflix, ect). It would mean companies could pay ISPs to intentionally slowdown access to certain sites to stifle competition (the netfix paying comcast to slowdown hulu example used earlier). And it would allow ISPs to hold companies "hostage" saying "Pay us $X or we'll slow down your sites". Which is why we need to protect net neutrality, to stop stuff like that from happening. The only groups getting rid of net neutrality would benefit are the ISPs.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Can I get the Pros and Cons? Im not sure whether we are supposed to find this good or bad
Pro: customers get free choice of what they want to do with the internet. You pay for the bandwidth you use, and can use it on whatever sites you want without any loss of service quality. For example, you get to choose which site to get your TV/movies/etc from based on which one you prefer, instead of being limited to the one your ISP is getting the most money from. Similarly, you don't have to worry about finding your access to sites hindered or even cut off entirely because your ISP wants to censor them.
Con: ISP doesn't get to make as much profit by abusing their customers.
Really, unless you have a direct financial stake in a particular ISP making a ton of money net neutrality is something you should support.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Can I get the Pros and Cons? Im not sure whether we are supposed to find this good or bad
Eh... might need a different thread on this.
Want me to PM you some info?
From what I read, it seems to be a good thing...
It is, (IMO), but I encourage you to do some research yourself and come to your own conclusions. I'm pretty biased on the subject. As evidenced by my posting.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Can I get the Pros and Cons? Im not sure whether we are supposed to find this good or bad
Roughly;
Pros;
-Assurance of an Open Market through level playing field and banning specific exploitative business arrangements.
-Assurance of a Free Internet by disallowing data discrimination (deciding what to do with data based on who or where it came from, or what it says)
-Protects the ability of internet based content/services providers to innovate
Typically, you'll find content providers like Google, Netflix, Amazon, and other web services advocating Net Neutrality, along with Civil Rights groups. Content providers argue that NN ensures an open market available to innovate freely, while Civil Right's groups see NN as a core component of the free and open internet (free speech and all that).
Cons;
-Prevents certain business from freely pursuing profits
-That's about it (no seriously, pretty much every argument about NN boils down to "but X can't make any money this way")
You'll usually find ISPs, and internet service providers in general, on this side. The most hated naturally being the Cable companies like Comcast and Verizon. Net Neutrality would disallow them from structuring their businesses in certain ways or providing certain services like Tiered internet packages. Many Academics and tech companies also oppose NN as stifling the ability to innovate the structure of the Internet.
The bigger debate really isn't "Is Net Neutrality good," but rather "what is Net Neutrality, and can it really exist?"
Points of contention;
-Some (Google and Verizon), argue that in principal all data is equal, but that certain Data types can be treated differently without inherently violating this principal. Example; Video Streaming has massively driven the expansion of the internet and its structure. Can one treat 'video streaming' data differently from 'funny cat gif' data, and still maintain NN?
-Significance debate is centered around whether or not Net Neutrality is too one sided. The current debate is predominately focused on what should be done about data once it reaches where it is going (once it reaches the end user providers like Comcast), while ignoring issues about how data gets to that location in the first place
-The issue of Exploitative business practices. ISPs can be described as having a exploitative position in the market. Without them, other service and content providers can't deliver content at all, which NN Proponents argue allows them to leverage deals that serve their interests and diminish those of all other parties. Opponents argue that NN hurts their abilities to compete and negotiate equitable agreements with content providers (and they're not entirely wrong).
-People hate cable companies. HATE (all caps) them. They regularly top the charts in customer dissatisfaction alongside electric companies (and EA,hehe). They operate quasi-monopolies, are themselves competitors on the internet as content generators (Comcast owns Hulu, which competes with Netflix and Amazon Prime), and generally just provide gakky customer service. To this end, the issue of how much people hate these companies clouds the issue of Net Neutrality.
I don't necessarily agree with everything on Lordy... but, that's pretty spot on.
My major fear isn't the prioritization of certain data streams... but, the potential conflict of interests.
Charter is a ISP thru and thru.
Comcast is a ISP and a Content Delivery company. The incestuous nature of these company need to make sure that don't act like the Old Bell companies.
Current consumer protection laws theoretically protects us, but the allure of that all mighty dolla is strong.
The other thing, is philosophical in nature... do you believe ISPs should be regulated like:
- - Utilities? If so, NN would be you best bet to achieve this.
- - Tech Firms? If so, NN should be "loose" in that it allows freedom for change, but have NN rules bring that bane hammer when they start acting like dicks.
Senate approves bill repealing much of ObamaCare
The Senate on Thursday passed legislation repealing the core pillars of ObamaCare, taking a major step toward sending such a bill to the president’s desk for the first time.
Republicans hailed it as a political messaging victory and a fulfillment of their promise from the 2014 midterm election to force President Obama to veto the landmark healthcare reform law named after him.
The measure passed 52-47 after the Senate voted to significantly strengthen the bill originally passed by the House and brought straight to the floor by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The House will need to approve the amended legislation before it can be sent to the White House.
Thursday’s vote was a major event in the Senate, as Democrats never allowed a stand-alone vote on an ObamaCare repeal bill when they controlled the chamber.
Democrats were also unable to block the GOP measure, which was brought to the floor under budget reconciliation rules that prevented a filibuster.
“For too long, Democrats did everything to prevent Congress from passing the type of legislation necessary to help these Americans who are hurting,” McConnell said on the floor. “Today, that ends.”
The measure guts the law by repealing authority for the federal government to run healthcare exchanges, and scrapping subsidies to help people afford plans bought through those exchanges. It zeros out the penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance and employers who do not offer health insurance.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, missed the final vote.
The vote caps weeks of intense and at times acrimonious debate within the Senate GOP conference over how far the repeal should go.
Conservative Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who are running for president, and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) threatened to oppose a House-passed repeal bill for not going far enough.
Three moderates, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), balked at it for including language defunding Planned Parenthood.
GOP leaders briefly floated the possibility of dropping the Planned Parenthood language but dropped the idea knowing it could spark a conservative backlash.
Instead, McConnell leaned on Cruz, Rubio and Lee to vote yes and sweetened the prospect by crafting an amendment that dramatically beefed up the Senate package. All three voted yes.
“This bill is a substantial improvement over the original House bill, and I’m grateful to Senate conservatives and Senate leadership for joining me in making it so,” Cruz said in a statement after the vote.
It repeals the expansion of Medicaid adopted by 30 states as well as many of the law’s tax increases, which the House bill left in place.
It cuts funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund and eliminates risk adjustment programs from insurance companies that lose money because of the law.
The House bill eliminates the individual and employer mandates, the "Cadillac tax" on expensive insurance plans and the medical device tax.
The question of how to handle Medicaid was a thorny one for McConnell because it pitted conservatives, who demanded a repeal, against Republican colleagues from states that expanded the safety-net program.
“I am very concerned about the 160,000 people who had Medicaid expansion in my state. I have difficulty with that being included,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, told The Hill earlier this month.
Vulnerable GOP incumbents face reelection next year in several states that have expanded Medicaid: Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
McConnell eased their concerns by phasing in the repeal over two years to give the federal government and states time to come up with a replacement program.
The Senate bill also repeals the over-the-counter medicine tax, the prescription drug tax, an annual fee on health insurers and the tax on indoor tanning services. It reduces the threshold of healthcare costs that can be deducted from 10 percent to 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income.
Cruz and Rubio signaled to GOP leaders earlier in the week that they would vote for the package but Cruz held out, keeping his colleagues guessing.
The GOP leadership braced itself for the possibility that Cruz might attempt to force the Senate to vote on a one-sentence provision repealing the entire bill, which the Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough had ruled out of order.
Cruz could have attempted to overturn the ruling of the presiding chair, who almost always follows the advice of the parliamentarian, with a simple-majority vote. But he decided not to, a pragmatic move since he colleagues were unlikely to back him.
Collins and Kirk voted against the repeal package after an amendment they offered earlier in the day to strike the language defunding Planned Parenthood failed by a vote of 48-52.
Murkowski, another sponsor of the amendment to protect Planned Parenthood funding, voted yes for the broader bill after declining to take a public position before the floor debate.
The Senate voted throughout the afternoon on a variety of amendments, many of them intended to send a political message.
Democrats sought to score political points by offering an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to bar suspected terrorists from buying guns. It failed by a vote of 45-54.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee blasted vulnerable Republicans who opposed it.
“It’s reprehensible that with everything going on in the world, these senators won’t stand up to the special interests and pass a commonsense measure like closing the terrorist gun loophole,” said Lauren Passalacqua, a spokeswoman for the committee.
An amendment sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), another presidential candidate, to loosen restrictions on concealed weapons permits fell six votes short of the 60 it needed as a nongermane proposal.
Senators passed by a vote of 90-10 an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) to repeal the "Cadillac tax" on expensive health plans. The provision was included in the House bill but had to be sunset to pass parliamentary muster in the upper chamber. Heller’s amendment removed the time-limiting language.
whembly wrote: Well... finally... finally the Senate passed a bill that'll gut Obamacare (for the 1st time ever):
And Obama will veto it, just like every republican in congress knows. Which means the party that claims to be all about financial responsibility and small government is blatantly wasting your tax dollars on a symbolic statement that accomplishes nothing more than being able to tell their supporters "see, we really hate Obamacare, keep voting for us". Pretty impressive hypocrisy, isn't it?
whembly wrote: Well... finally... finally the Senate passed a bill that'll gut Obamacare (for the 1st time ever):
And Obama will veto it, just like every republican in congress knows. Which means the party that claims to be all about financial responsibility and small government is blatantly wasting your tax dollars on a symbolic statement that accomplishes nothing more than being able to tell their supporters "see, we really hate Obamacare, keep voting for us". Pretty impressive hypocrisy, isn't it?
No.
It puts the opposition on record for the current election cycle.
At least the Republicans succeeded in keeping their promise to the voters that put them there....
Let President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and every other Democrat supporting Obamacare defendthe dumpster fire legislation.
That's not "wasting tax dollars" as you put it... that's actually doing their job. If the veto cannot be overriden, then the Republicans can say, "don't vote for HRC or Bernie if you want to repeal Obamacare".
At this point I'd respect the republican party more if they would actually look like the saturday morning cartoon villians they act like. Maybe take a page from Marvel and incorporate some green in their dress everyday or I dunno move the capital to an active volcano base where they could cackle about making things tougher for poor people as they sit on thrones of cash.
I live and work in an economically depressed area and I considered to be below the poverty line despite having one of the better jobs available in the area.
When my boss told me to my face he would pay the fine instead of provide insurance because it was cheaper for him. Medicaid became my best option.
So the fact these donkey caves want to do everything in their power to take that away is about as endearing as the fact that my boss took three vacations this year.
This bill would stop the current funding streams to the expanded part of Medicaid within 2 years. Those two years would give state/fed time adjust.
It's still an incredibly stupid move which will put a number of GOP congressmen at risk now and in the future, especially if the states themselves don't actually move to replace that funding. Double points because the expansion of Mediaid was one of the few elements of PPACA which was undeniably good.
That's not "wasting tax dollars" as you put it... that's actually doing their job. If the veto cannot be overriden, then the Republicans can say, "don't vote for HRC or Bernie if you want to repeal Obamacare".
They've been saying that for a long time now. Hell, many of Cruz's online campaign ads have been featuring the phrase "Stop Obama" in white letters on a red, button shaped, background for almost a year.
Should I apply for a grant of taxpayer money to prove a point? I know I am not an elected official yet, but the point I am proving is to help me and my friends get elected so its OK.
[edit] To be clear, this is intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek.
whembly wrote: It puts the opposition on record for the current election cycle.
IOW, wasting tax dollars to make a point. Everyone knows what the opposition's position is.
At least the Republicans succeeded in keeping their promise to the voters that put them there....
No they didn't. They haven't repealed Obamacare, they've just passed a symbolic statement that they know perfectly well is not going to accomplish anything. If you think that's "keeping a promise" then you have pretty low expectations for your representatives.
That's not "wasting tax dollars" as you put it... that's actually doing their job.
Their job is to pass laws and govern the country, not to turn congress into another campaign speech for the upcoming election. Every republican who voted for that bill knew it was going to be vetoed, and knew there was no hope of overturning the veto. They're getting paid by your tax dollars to represent you, not to defend their own jobs, but you're getting absolutely nothing out of the vote.
Grey Templar wrote: If you've been elected to repeal Obamacare, among other things, then trying to repeal it is doing your job. Doesn't matter if it will succeed or not.
It does matter, because there are other things that they could have spent that time and effort doing. Things that would benefit the people who elected them rather than serve as a poll boost for themselves in the next election. And this measure is unlikely to appeal beyond those who would have voted republican anyway, making it a wasteful expense even in that regard. Personally I think they will lose more support from voters than they will gain with this publicity stunt, which strikes me as appropriate considering the action.
Grey Templar wrote: Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, i wouldn't be so sure.
Actually, last I checked, it had higher popularity than unpopularity (like 43% vs 41%). It's a very divisive issue, and they will gain support with some and lose it with others. There really is not clear cut "this is unpopular" or "this is popular".
Grey Templar wrote: If you've been elected to repeal Obamacare, among other things, then trying to repeal it is doing your job. Doesn't matter if it will succeed or not.
But they aren't trying to repeal it, they're trying to make a big show of why you should keep voting for them. If you know that your action is going to have no effect before you begin then it doesn't count as trying. This isn't a case where they started working on the bill and just fell a bit short of success, everyone involved knew before they even started that it was going to have no effect just like every previous attempt.
And really, this is just a distraction from really trying to repeal Obamacare. Making a big show of "WE HATE OBAMA JUST LIKE YOU" is easy. Actually repealing the law would be difficult and require granting concessions to the democrats in exchange. But that's too much work I guess, so all they're willing to do is talk.
I'd say passing both the House and Senate only for it to get vetoed counts as falling just a bit short of success. If the president in the White House was on-board for repealing it it would be a done deal. This isn't whining about it in Congress, they actually passed a freaking bill to remove it.
Grey Templar wrote: Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, i wouldn't be so sure.
Actually, last I checked, it had higher popularity than unpopularity (like 43% vs 41%). It's a very divisive issue, and they will gain support with some and lose it with others. There really is not clear cut "this is unpopular" or "this is popular".
last pollI saw on CNN today..was that Obamacare was at 49% disapproval and 43% approval.
Grey Templar wrote: I'd say passing both the House and Senate only for it to get vetoed counts as falling just a bit short of success.
That would be an illusion of falling just a bit short. It's not like they got the votes together, thought the president would sign the bill, and got surprised by a veto. Everyone involved knew this would be the outcome before they even started working on the bill. There was a 0% chance of success, and they fact that they wasted a bunch of time and effort on passing a doomed bill doesn't make their failure any less inevitable. IOW, it was a publicity stunt with no chance of being anything else, not an honest attempt that didn't quite work out the way they hoped.
Grey Templar wrote: I'd say passing both the House and Senate only for it to get vetoed counts as falling just a bit short of success.
That would be an illusion of falling just a bit short. It's not like they got the votes together, thought the president would sign the bill, and got surprised by a veto. Everyone involved knew this would be the outcome before they even started working on the bill. There was a 0% chance of success, and they fact that they wasted a bunch of time and effort on passing a doomed bill doesn't make their failure any less inevitable.
Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do? Pretty sure that isn't not how elected officials are supposed to act. They're supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, and if that means doing something which currently has very little or no chance of success it doesn't matter.
Grey Templar wrote: Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do? Pretty sure that isn't not how elected officials are supposed to act. They're supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, and if that means doing something which currently has very little or no chance of success it doesn't matter.
Yes, when you KNOW that you have no chance of success with a particular approach you should either concede defeat and stop wasting time on your publicity stunts or try a different approach. The problem is that the republican party isn't willing to work to repeal Obamacare, they just want to do cheap publicity stunts to persuade people to keep voting for them. You don't get credit for "trying" when you know your "effort" is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Grey Templar wrote: Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, i wouldn't be so sure.
Actually, last I checked, it had higher popularity than unpopularity (like 43% vs 41%). It's a very divisive issue, and they will gain support with some and lose it with others. There really is not clear cut "this is unpopular" or "this is popular".
last pollI saw on CNN today..was that Obamacare was at 49% disapproval and 43% approval.
GG
Ah, must of changed since last time I saw them (been a month or so). But, yes, a mere 6% difference. And it fluctuates quite a bit, although still remaining relatively even. It's not really something the R's can use to garner lots of new votes, it excites the base, and that's it.
Grey Templar wrote: Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do? Pretty sure that isn't not how elected officials are supposed to act. They're supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, and if that means doing something which currently has very little or no chance of success it doesn't matter.
Yes, when you KNOW that you have no chance of success with a particular approach you should either concede defeat and stop wasting time on your publicity stunts or try a different approach. The problem is that the republican party isn't willing to work to repeal Obamacare, they just want to do cheap publicity stunts to persuade people to keep voting for them. You don't get credit for "trying" when you know your "effort" is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
So going through the proper channels and passing actual fething legislation to repeal Obamacare is a cheap publicity stunt and not actually working to repeal Obamacare? Are they supposed to go burn down the White House, run around in "I hate Obamacare" T-shirts, or destroy every electronic and physical copy of the Obamacare bill so it doesn't exist anymore?
What would actually working to repeal Obamacare look like?
Grey Templar wrote: So going through the proper channels and passing actual fething legislation to repeal Obamacare is a cheap publicity stunt and not actually working to repeal Obamacare?
Yep, because they know that bill was going to fail. You aren't working to repeal something if you're wasting time on stuff that you know will not succeed, you're just wasting time.
What would actually working to repeal Obamacare look like?
It would probably start with offering democrats something in exchange, to either get Obama to sign the repeal or lure enough democrats in congress to cross party lines that the bill passes with a veto-proof majority behind it. But the republican party is not willing to do this, probably because it would involve making sacrifices instead of just cheap publicity stunts to campaign for the next election.
Oh, so just because you know you are going to fail, or just think you might fail, means you should just abandon your ideals and doing what your constituents want. According to the "Peregrine school of Democracy".
And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.
And its not like the Democrats aren't also being just as stubborn and obstinate about things too you know.
Grey Templar wrote: Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do? Pretty sure that isn't not how elected officials are supposed to act. They're supposed to do what their constituents want them to do, and if that means doing something which currently has very little or no chance of success it doesn't matter.
Yes, when you KNOW that you have no chance of success with a particular approach you should either concede defeat and stop wasting time on your publicity stunts or try a different approach. The problem is that the republican party isn't willing to work to repeal Obamacare, they just want to do cheap publicity stunts to persuade people to keep voting for them. You don't get credit for "trying" when you know your "effort" is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
So going through the proper channels and passing actual fething legislation to repeal Obamacare is a cheap publicity stunt and not actually working to repeal Obamacare? Are they supposed to go burn down the White House, run around in "I hate Obamacare" T-shirts, or destroy every electronic and physical copy of the Obamacare bill so it doesn't exist anymore?
What would actually working to repeal Obamacare look like?
I'd imagine working with the opposition (whether that be Obama or the congressional D's) to create either a compromise or a whole new law in order to either avoid a veto or get a veto-proof majority.
That or waiting for the election to comes around and campaigning on that, and repealing it if they win.
It would probably start with offering democrats something in exchange, to either get Obama to sign the repeal or lure enough democrats in congress to cross party lines that the bill passes with a veto-proof majority behind it. But the republican party is not willing to do this, probably because it would involve making sacrifices instead of just cheap publicity stunts to campaign for the next election.
IMO, it wouldn't even look like that.... What it would look like is both sides sitting down and saying, "this thing is a trainwreck" then saying, "healthcare is here. Now, how do we make it work better?"
I suspect that the reason ACA "disapproval" numbers are high, is because of the unchecked and ridiculous amounts of complexity. Not to mention the utterly ridiculous belief that the poor people are "mooching" off "the system".
Grey Templar wrote: Oh, so just because you know you are going to fail, or just think you might fail, means you should just abandon your ideals and doing what your constituents want.
Yes, when you know beyond any doubt that you are going to fail you should not keep smashing your head against the wall thinking that this time will be different. You either stick to your ideas and try a new approach, or concede defeat and work on accomplishing some of the other things your constituents want.
And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.
Do you understand the difference between passing a bill you're not sure about and passing a bill that you know will be vetoed?
And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.
And its not like the Democrats aren't also being just as stubborn and obstinate about things too you know.
No... you should pass bills. However, when you pass a bill that you already know, before ever voting on it, that it will fail is unacceptable and a waste of time.
Grey Templar wrote: Oh, so just because you know you are going to fail, or just think you might fail, means you should just abandon your ideals and doing what your constituents want.
Yes, when you know beyond any doubt that you are going to fail you should not keep smashing your head against the wall thinking that this time will be different. You either stick to your ideas and try a new approach, or concede defeat and work on accomplishing some of the other things your constituents want.
And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.
Do you understand the difference between passing a bill you're not sure about and passing a bill that you know will be vetoed?
Do you understand how ridiculous what you are saying sounds? You are flat out saying that elected officials should disregard what their constituents want if there is major opposition, which is moronic on its face.
Passing legislation through the House and Senate is how laws are created and changed in this country. You're acting like there is some other way which they should be using.
And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.
And its not like the Democrats aren't also being just as stubborn and obstinate about things too you know.
No... you should pass bills. However, when you pass a bill that you already know, before ever voting on it, that it will fail is unacceptable and a waste of time.
So standing up for your principles should never be done?
So standing up for your principles should never be done?
Standing for principles, yes... But that's the problem, this isn't a principled stance. "Obama sucks!" isn't a principle. "A person who works 40 hours a week shouldn't be in poverty" is a principle, just as "we should work to protect the environment and improve the economy" is as well.
"Obama sucks" and "we're gonna do the opposite of what HE did" are basically a big feth you.
Grey Templar wrote: Do you understand how ridiculous what you are saying sounds? You are flat out saying that elected officials should disregard what their constituents want if there is major opposition, which is moronic on its face.
Passing legislation through the House and Senate is how laws are created and changed in this country. You're acting like there is some other way which they should be using.
There is a difference between major opposition and having zero chance of success.
So standing up for your principles should never be done?
Not when you're being paid to govern the country instead of making cheap publicity stunts about your "principles". Not that they really are principles, of course, or the republicans would be willing to negotiate instead of just attempting the same doomed strategy over and over again. But that would mean a lot of work and sacrifice, as well as the end of the easy "vote for us to stop Obamacare" vote-earning scheme they've got now.
So standing up for your principles should never be done?
Standing for principles, yes... But that's the problem, this isn't a principled stance. "Obama sucks!" isn't a principle. "A person who works 40 hours a week shouldn't be in poverty" is a principle, just as "we should work to protect the environment and improve the economy" is as well.
"Obama sucks" and "we're gonna do the opposite of what HE did" are basically a big feth you.
Wanting to remove a terrible and detrimental piece of legislation is a principled stance IMO. Obamacare is really a monstrosity that both sides should be wanting to burn ASAP. But the Democrats aren't willing to do that because they'd rather have a terrible bill just so they can say they have a "universal healthcare" merit badge. At least Republicans are trying to do the right thing.
Maybe if Democrats made the first move and made some reasonable demands in exchange for removing Obamacare a discussion could start.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe if Democrats made the first move and made some reasonable demands in exchange for removing Obamacare a discussion could start.
Why does the discussion have to start with the people saying "let's not change anything" making an offer to change things? Why shouldn't the burden of making a convincing offer fall on the people who actually want to change the situation?
Grey Templar wrote: Now its A's turn to either say "No, you cannot have my cake" or offer a compromise like "I'll give you my cake if you give me your Pie".
And A has said "no you can not have my cake" already. Many times, in fact. So if B wants to continue the discussion in a constructive manner instead of just making a big show of screaming "GIVE ME YOUR CAKE!!!!" over and over again they need to make A an offer to change their mind.
Given that the Republicans have enough of a majority to pass legislation removing Obamacare, I think that there is less need for compromise anyway. They may be able to just take the cake soon anyway.
If anything, it would be stupid for Dems to not compromise now and try to get something out of it before they possibly get no say in the matter. Just like how they rammed Obamacare down everyone's throats they may soon find it taken away in a similar manner.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that the Republicans have enough of a majority to pass legislation removing Obamacare, I think that there is less need for compromise anyway. They'll be able to just take the cake soon anyway.
So now you're assuming they're going to win the presidential election in 2016? That's a pretty bold claim when Trump is currently leading the polls, with a guy who thinks the pyramids are grain silos in second place.
And this just highlights how much of a waste of time this latest attempt at repealing the law was. If you're expecting to win in 2016 then what exactly is the point of making a symbolic statement (which has zero chance of success) now? Why not focus on other issues until you get your chance to repeal Obamacare in a year or so? The answer of course is that this wasn't a legitimate attempt to repeal the law, it was a publicly-funded campaign speech for everyone involved.
Grey Templar wrote: Neither Trump nor Carson are going to get the nomination. They'll drop off eventually.
So who is it going to be then? Cruz, who is proud to be endorsed by and appear on-stage with a "gay people should be executed" preacher? One of the generic mainstream candidates who are so bland and underwhelming that they can't even out-poll Trump? Let's face it, Trump is winning right now for pretty obvious reasons.
Grey Templar wrote: Neither Trump nor Carson are going to get the nomination. They'll drop off eventually.
So who is it going to be then? Cruz, who is proud to be endorsed by and appear on-stage with a "gay people should be executed" preacher? One of the generic mainstream candidates who are so bland and underwhelming that they can't even out-poll Trump? Let's face it, Trump is winning right now for pretty obvious reasons.
Cruz isn't even an american, show me the birth certificate!
If I had to pick now its going to be Bush, but its still way to early to tell who its going to be. Its not too early to say who it almost certainly will not be.
How do we know trump and carson are going to drop out? Saying it won't make it so? and don't say experience or any variation of without providing examples from "experience"
Jeb Bush has a major likability problem. Also he's a bush, part of the dynasty full of some of the worst presidents in U.S. History. Also, he completely ed up florida's educational system, among other things.
Rubio has been associated with the kill the gays crowd and the crazy anti-abortion crowd. He is going to have electability issues among independents.
Wanting to remove a terrible and detrimental piece of legislation is a principled stance IMO. Obamacare is really a monstrosity that both sides should be wanting to burn ASAP. But the Democrats aren't willing to do that because they'd rather have a terrible bill just so they can say they have a "universal healthcare" merit badge. At least Republicans are trying to do the right thing.
1. It most definitely is not detrimental.
2. I agree that it was terribly written, but "burning it" isn't a solution. Congress needs to sit down like they adults they are supposed to fething be and and get a better piece of legislation on the table.
3. Republicans most definitely are NOT trying to do the "right" thing here.
Personally, I'd rather Trump won. Clinton was a security risk even out of the Presidential Office and all she does is lie on camera.
The realistic winner will be clinton.... IMO, the "best" choice is Sanders.
The absolute worst choice?? Well, take your pick, pretty much any of the Republican side give plenty of reasons why they SHOULDNT be POTUS.
EDIT: For a case in point example of why Trump would seriously be the worst possible, I'd invite you to google his remarks about a "Muslim registration" The dude is basically a taller, overweight, with a bad hair-piece version of Hitler.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The realistic winner will be clinton.... IMO, the "best" choice is Sanders.
The absolute worst choice?? Well, take your pick, pretty much any of the Republican side give plenty of reasons why they SHOULDNT be POTUS.
EDIT: For a case in point example of why Trump would seriously be the worst possible, I'd invite you to google his remarks about a "Muslim registration" The dude is basically a taller, overweight, with a bad hair-piece version of Hitler.
I think Clinton would be the worst choice. Look at her voting history. Completely anti-gay up until it became necessary not to be. She destroyed evidence after there was an enquiry into her private emails. The only reason she stands a chance of being a candidate is because she's married to Bill Clinton. And, again, her platform is mostly lies.
There's no chance of Sanders getting in. The only thing Sanders can do is go independent and kill off Clinton's support.
On the Muslim registration thing: It's already a thing. A lot of Muslims in Europe are under as much surveillance as possible because they visit "radicalised" Mosques.
The Senate Republicans blocked a bill to prevent suspects on the terror watch list from legally purchasing guns
I'm confused
You could make the argument that a suspect is just that - a suspect, and that they should still have all the legal rights they are entitled too,
but in light of what's been happening recently....it's very strange...
The only thing that was strange was the fact that Obama had the audacity to call for that blatantly unconstitutional gak legislation in the first place. US citizens are entitled to due process, period. There is no constitutional way to legislate that away based on being on some super secret bullgak list. That was a horrible govt over reach and it deserved to be slapped down as harshly and decisively as possible.
And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.
And its not like the Democrats aren't also being just as stubborn and obstinate about things too you know.
No... you should pass bills. However, when you pass a bill that you already know, before ever voting on it, that it will fail is unacceptable and a waste of time.
Not true. There is a lot to value to forcing the congress critters to take a vote. Their votes can come back to haunt them come primary time and in the main election. Both parties use these votes.
The simple fact that the House just passed a binon-partisan education bill that was stripped of most of what the supposed Republican constituency wants in an ed Bill (I.e. vouchers) shod show people that they can reach across the aisle when the mood strikes them.
I didn't have a problem with the idea of blocking people on the no-fly list from buying guns, the problem for me was that the no-fly list is a clusterfeth with all kinds of people being on the list for no real reason and with people who have similar names still being affected because they are "on the list".
Even a good idea is terrible when it is build on a cracking foundation.
d-usa wrote: I didn't have a problem with the idea of blocking people on the no-fly list from buying guns, the problem for me was that the no-fly list is a clusterfeth with all kinds of people being on the list for no real reason and with people who have similar names still being affected because they are "on the list".
Even a good idea is terrible when it is build on a cracking foundation.
The fact that US citizens can be denied due process and be put on the useless unconstitutional bullgak security theater No Fly List is abhorrent. The list itself never should have been created in the first place. Doubling down on it and imposing even more unconstitutional restrictions and revocations of protected rights is an even worse idea.
Honestly, isn't the 'No Fly List' nothing but an admission that TSA screening is a failure and a waste? Are we supposed to believe the folks on it are so cunning and smart they can defeat the security measures? If so, I submit ANYONE who wants to can defeat the security measures. And clearly, since NONE of the mass shootings involve people who were on the list, the list does not include the right people.
And the MUCH larger (over 700k) terror watch list is just as worthless. If they have enough info they can get warrants, collect evidence and prosecute.
I just find it damn hysterical that when everyone dog piled on Trump for suggesting to have Muslims "on a watch list".... and, many of those same critics want to use these "terror watch list" to deprive Americans of their rights without due process.
CptJake wrote: Honestly, isn't the 'No Fly List' nothing but an admission that TSA screening is a failure and a waste?
Well you might catch them when they aren't trying to smuggle anything onboard the plane. Not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless.
What do you mean 'catch'? If you show up at the airport and are on the list, nothing happens to you except they won't let you on a flight. Inclusion on the list is not grounds for detention nor arrest.
whembly wrote: I just find it damn hysterical that when everyone dog piled on Trump for suggesting to have Muslims "on a watch list".... and, many of those same critics want to use these "terror watch list" to deprive Americans of their rights without due process.
If you cannot tell the difference between "They're Muslims, so they could all be terrorists" and "People who have been placed on a terror watch list for some reason or another", then truly?
You have no business commenting on anything in this thread.
whembly wrote: I just find it damn hysterical that when everyone dog piled on Trump for suggesting to have Muslims "on a watch list".... and, many of those same critics want to use these "terror watch list" to deprive Americans of their rights without due process.
If you cannot tell the difference between "They're Muslims, so they could all be terrorists" and "People who have been placed on a terror watch list for some reason or another", then truly?
You have no business commenting on anything in this thread.
Yeah, that 'some reason or another' is pure gak. It could be (and has been) some anonymous source and info that has never been verified. ANY list should be considered appalling, when you want to use inclusion on a list with nebulous and inconstant rules for inclusion as a basis for stripping away constitutional rights, I have a problem with it. Should we also strip away their 4th amendment rights to make it easier to collect info on them? Perhaps strip away their 1st amendment rights so they can't complain about it. Even better, we could keep everyone on the list in a big camp to better track them and their behavior.
Liberal logic: If we prohibit Syrian refugees from entering the country, we're letting DaIsh win. However, sacrificing key constitutional rights in response to an DaIsh inspired attack is perfectly okay, and is definitely not letting the terrorists win.
Yeah I am with the republicans on this one. The bill sounds like a kneejerk fear-response and should not have been put through.
Also this:
Democrat logic: If we prohibit Syrian refugees from entering the country, we're letting DaIsh win. However, sacrificing key constitutional rights in response to an DaIsh inspired attack is perfectly okay, and is definitely not letting the terrorists win.
Kind of highlights how ridiculous both parties are across the board. I fixed it for you by the way; don't confuse democrats with liberals, or republicans with conservatives. There is overlap in those venn diagrams but they are too far apart to be legitimately lumped together these days.
whembly wrote: I just find it damn hysterical that when everyone dog piled on Trump for suggesting to have Muslims "on a watch list".... and, many of those same critics want to use these "terror watch list" to deprive Americans of their rights without due process.
If you cannot tell the difference between "They're Muslims, so they could all be terrorists" and "People who have been placed on a terror watch list for some reason or another", then truly?
You have no business commenting on anything in this thread.
Yeah, that 'some reason or another' is pure gak. It could be (and has been) some anonymous source and info that has never been verified. ANY list should be considered appalling, when you want to use inclusion on a list with nebulous and inconstant rules for inclusion as a basis for stripping away constitutional rights, I have a problem with it. Should we also strip away their 4th amendment rights to make it easier to collect info on them? Perhaps strip away their 1st amendment rights so they can't complain about it. Even better, we could keep everyone on the list in a big camp to better track them and their behavior.
You're responding to an argument I'm not making.
It should be really friggin' easy for someone to be able to tell the difference between a "Let's not allow someone who is currently on a terror watch list purchase firearms" and "Let's put all Muslims under surveillance because they're Muslim" and why one makes SOME sense while the other is pants on head moronic. And let's not forget that the same individual who wants to put Muslims under surveillance and make them wear identifying marks in public also wants to close their house of worship because SOME of those places get used for radicalization.
And for the record, I'm not exactly fond of a "secret list that you never get informed of being on", but what the hell do you expect them to do? A letter in the mail saying, "Congratulations! You made the Terror Watch List. You can expect: Phone taps, email intercepts, and random surveillance by plain-clothed government agents. This is a lifetime guarantee!"?
Ideally, it would be something to the effect of:
X is on the terror watch list.
X goes to purchase a firearm.
X gets a visit from a local FBI branch and is informed of being on the terror watch list.
X then gets the chance to prove in a court of law that they do not belong on said list, and is removed.
whembly wrote: I just find it damn hysterical that when everyone dog piled on Trump for suggesting to have Muslims "on a watch list".... and, many of those same critics want to use these "terror watch list" to deprive Americans of their rights without due process.
If you cannot tell the difference between "They're Muslims, so they could all be terrorists" and "People who have been placed on a terror watch list for some reason or another", then truly?
You have no business commenting on anything in this thread.
Yeah, that 'some reason or another' is pure gak. It could be (and has been) some anonymous source and info that has never been verified. ANY list should be considered appalling, when you want to use inclusion on a list with nebulous and inconstant rules for inclusion as a basis for stripping away constitutional rights, I have a problem with it. Should we also strip away their 4th amendment rights to make it easier to collect info on them? Perhaps strip away their 1st amendment rights so they can't complain about it. Even better, we could keep everyone on the list in a big camp to better track them and their behavior.
You're responding to an argument I'm not making.
It should be really friggin' easy for someone to be able to tell the difference between a "Let's not allow someone who is currently on a terror watch list purchase firearms" and "Let's put all Muslims under surveillance because they're Muslim" and why one makes SOME sense while the other is pants on head moronic. And let's not forget that the same individual who wants to put Muslims under surveillance and make them wear identifying marks in public also wants to close their house of worship because SOME of those places get used for radicalization.
And for the record, I'm not exactly fond of a "secret list that you never get informed of being on", but what the hell do you expect them to do? A letter in the mail saying, "Congratulations! You made the Terror Watch List. You can expect: Phone taps, email intercepts, and random surveillance by plain-clothed government agents. This is a lifetime guarantee!"?
Ideally, it would be something to the effect of:
X is on the terror watch list.
X goes to purchase a firearm.
X gets a visit from a local FBI branch and is informed of being on the terror watch list.
X then gets the chance to prove in a court of law that they do not belong on said list, and is removed.
I expect our federal government to behave in a manner consistent with the facts that US citizens are innocent until proven guilty and are entitled to due process regardless of what the government might suspect. The feds don't have the right to have a no fly list in the first place. If the feds suspect someone of engaging in unlawful behavior they can present a case in court before they take punitive measures not after. Turning our entire judicial system upside down because " terrorism" is utter bullgak.
And for the record, I'm not exactly fond of a "secret list that you never get informed of being on", but what the hell do you expect them to do? A letter in the mail saying, "Congratulations! You made the Terror Watch List. You can expect: Phone taps, email intercepts, and random surveillance by plain-clothed government agents. This is a lifetime guarantee!"?
Ideally, it would be something to the effect of:
X is on the terror watch list.
X goes to purchase a firearm.
X gets a visit from a local FBI branch and is informed of being on the terror watch list.
X then gets the chance to prove in a court of law that they do not belong on said list, and is removed.
So X gets to incur massive legal costs?
feth that.
Yes, if X is a suspect I expect the gov't to use warrants and not violate X's rights.
Ideally, this whole list idea gets thrown out as the unconstitutional gak it is.
Ideally, it would be something to the effect of: X is on the terror watch list. X goes to purchase a firearm. X gets a visit from a local FBI branch and is informed of being on the terror watch list.
X then gets the chance to prove in a court of law that they do not belong on said list, and is removed.
I'm retracting my earlier statement, which was made under the influence of alcohol, on the subject of terror watch lists.
I agree with the others - it is unconstitutional, and drawing on my knowledge of US history, very similar to the red scare that swept America from 1918 onwards.
Grey Templar wrote: If I had to pick now its going to be Bush, but its still way to early to tell who its going to be. Its not too early to say who it almost certainly will not be.
d-usa wrote: I didn't have a problem with the idea of blocking people on the no-fly list from buying guns, the problem for me was that the no-fly list is a clusterfeth with all kinds of people being on the list for no real reason and with people who have similar names still being affected because they are "on the list".
Even a good idea is terrible when it is build on a cracking foundation.
The fact that US citizens can be denied due process and be put on the useless unconstitutional bullgak security theater No Fly List is abhorrent. The list itself never should have been created in the first place. Doubling down on it and imposing even more unconstitutional restrictions and revocations of protected rights is an even worse idea.
I hve no problem with such a list if it doesn't include US citizens.
whembly wrote: I just find it damn hysterical that when everyone dog piled on Trump for suggesting to have Muslims "on a watch list".... and, many of those same critics want to use these "terror watch list" to deprive Americans of their rights without due process.
If you cannot tell the difference between "They're Muslims, so they could all be terrorists" and "People who have been placed on a terror watch list for some reason or another", then truly?
You have no business commenting on anything in this thread.
If you can't tell a difference between guys in US army uniforms in WWII putting people into internment camps because of where their parents came from and others being denied their fundamental rights without trial then you're just....absolutely correct. There is no difference.
No one is going to touch the "No-Fly List", because if you do and something bad happens... well.... you are toast. Not only will you lose your job (politician), you will be pilloried int eh media, and be labelled in the History books as an idiot.
Easy E wrote: No one is going to touch the "No-Fly List", because if you do and something bad happens... well.... you are toast. Not only will you lose your job (politician), you will be pilloried int eh media, and be labelled in the History books as an idiot.
And yet, the odds the perp of the next mass shooting was on the No Fly List are about nil.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black, Latino and Asian, immigrants, and American born, moms and dads, daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens. All of them were part of our American family.
Tonight I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism and how we can keep our country safe. The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here's what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs.
So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people. Our nation has been at war with terrorists since Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we've hardened our defenses, from airports, to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas and worked around the clock to keep us safe.
Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas, disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama Bin Laden, and decimating Al Qaeda's leadership.
Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we've become better at preventing complex multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turn to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009, in Chattanooga earlier this year, and now in San Bernardino.
And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.
For seven years, I've confronted this evolving threat each and every morning in my intelligence briefing, and since the day I took this office, I have authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is.
As commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people.
As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris.
And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.
OBAMA: Well, here's what I want you to know. The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values or giving into fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless. And by drawing upon every aspect of American power.
Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, air strikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure.
And since attacks in Paris, our closest allies, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.
Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens.
In both countries, we're deploying special operations forces who can accelerate that offensive. We've stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and will continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.
Third, we're working with friends and allies to stop ISIL's operations, to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters.
Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged merged intelligence sharing with our European allies. We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria, and we are cooperating with Muslim majority countries, and with our Muslim communities here at home, to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.
Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process and timeline to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian war.
Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL, a group that threatens us all.
This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done.
That's why I've ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.
Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no- fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons, like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun-safety measures, but the fact is that our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, no matter how effective they are, cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual was motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.
What we can do, and must do, is make it harder for them to kill.
Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to war zones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.
Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.
For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of air strikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united and committed to this fight.
My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat.
Let me now say a word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops and draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.
The strategy that we are using now -- air strikes, special forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory, and it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.
Here's what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.
ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death. And they account for a tiny fraction of a more than a billion Muslims around the world, including millions of patriotic Muslim-Americans who reject their hateful ideology.
Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim.
If we're to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. It's a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse.
Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote, to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans, of every faith, to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim-Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL.
Muslim-Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co- workers, our sports heroes. And, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future presidents must take to keep our country safe. Let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear. That we have always met challenges, whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks, by coming together around our common ideals as one nation and one people.
So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt that America will prevail.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
Kinda weak sauce to be using the Oval Office for this speech. It's okay for the most part... except for the whole "What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? " trope...
*shrugs*
Isn't this the first time Obama implored Congress for a new AUMF against ISIL?
I don't think so, I think he did a while ago, although that was near the beginning when the "Oh no, ISIS!" thing set in. I don't have the best memory, so I could be wrong.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black, Latino and Asian, immigrants, and American born, moms and dads, daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens. All of them were part of our American family.
Tonight I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism and how we can keep our country safe. The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here's what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs.
So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people. Our nation has been at war with terrorists since Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we've hardened our defenses, from airports, to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas and worked around the clock to keep us safe.
Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas, disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama Bin Laden, and decimating Al Qaeda's leadership.
Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we've become better at preventing complex multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turn to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009, in Chattanooga earlier this year, and now in San Bernardino.
And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.
For seven years, I've confronted this evolving threat each and every morning in my intelligence briefing, and since the day I took this office, I have authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is.
As commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people.
As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris.
And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.
OBAMA: Well, here's what I want you to know. The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values or giving into fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless. And by drawing upon every aspect of American power.
Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, air strikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure.
And since attacks in Paris, our closest allies, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.
Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens.
In both countries, we're deploying special operations forces who can accelerate that offensive. We've stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and will continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.
Third, we're working with friends and allies to stop ISIL's operations, to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters.
Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged merged intelligence sharing with our European allies. We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria, and we are cooperating with Muslim majority countries, and with our Muslim communities here at home, to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.
Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process and timeline to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian war.
Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL, a group that threatens us all.
This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done.
That's why I've ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.
Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no- fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons, like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun-safety measures, but the fact is that our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, no matter how effective they are, cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual was motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.
What we can do, and must do, is make it harder for them to kill.
Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to war zones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.
Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.
For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of air strikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united and committed to this fight.
My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat.
Let me now say a word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops and draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.
The strategy that we are using now -- air strikes, special forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory, and it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.
Here's what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.
ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death. And they account for a tiny fraction of a more than a billion Muslims around the world, including millions of patriotic Muslim-Americans who reject their hateful ideology.
Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim.
If we're to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. It's a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse.
Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote, to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans, of every faith, to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim-Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL.
Muslim-Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co- workers, our sports heroes. And, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future presidents must take to keep our country safe. Let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear. That we have always met challenges, whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks, by coming together around our common ideals as one nation and one people.
So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt that America will prevail.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
Kinda weak sauce to be using the Oval Office for this speech. It's okay for the most part... except for the whole "What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? " trope...
*shrugs*
Isn't this the first time Obama implored Congress for a new AUMF against ISIL?
What? He should have flown a fighter jet onto an aircraft carrier and given the speech beneath a big, "Mission Accomplished" banner?
::shrug:: Presidents use a variety of locations/means to add gravitas to their message, at least the Oval Office didn't cost the tax payers anything extra.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black, Latino and Asian, immigrants, and American born, moms and dads, daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens. All of them were part of our American family.
Tonight I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism and how we can keep our country safe. The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here's what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs.
So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people. Our nation has been at war with terrorists since Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we've hardened our defenses, from airports, to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas and worked around the clock to keep us safe.
Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas, disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama Bin Laden, and decimating Al Qaeda's leadership.
Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we've become better at preventing complex multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turn to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009, in Chattanooga earlier this year, and now in San Bernardino.
And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.
For seven years, I've confronted this evolving threat each and every morning in my intelligence briefing, and since the day I took this office, I have authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is.
As commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people.
As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris.
And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.
OBAMA: Well, here's what I want you to know. The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values or giving into fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless. And by drawing upon every aspect of American power.
Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, air strikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure.
And since attacks in Paris, our closest allies, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.
Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens.
In both countries, we're deploying special operations forces who can accelerate that offensive. We've stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and will continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.
Third, we're working with friends and allies to stop ISIL's operations, to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters.
Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged merged intelligence sharing with our European allies. We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria, and we are cooperating with Muslim majority countries, and with our Muslim communities here at home, to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.
Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process and timeline to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian war.
Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL, a group that threatens us all.
This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done.
That's why I've ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.
Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no- fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons, like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun-safety measures, but the fact is that our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, no matter how effective they are, cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual was motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.
What we can do, and must do, is make it harder for them to kill.
Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to war zones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.
Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.
For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of air strikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united and committed to this fight.
My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat.
Let me now say a word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops and draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.
The strategy that we are using now -- air strikes, special forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory, and it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.
Here's what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.
ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death. And they account for a tiny fraction of a more than a billion Muslims around the world, including millions of patriotic Muslim-Americans who reject their hateful ideology.
Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim.
If we're to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. It's a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse.
Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote, to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans, of every faith, to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim-Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL.
Muslim-Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co- workers, our sports heroes. And, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future presidents must take to keep our country safe. Let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear. That we have always met challenges, whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks, by coming together around our common ideals as one nation and one people.
So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt that America will prevail.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
Kinda weak sauce to be using the Oval Office for this speech. It's okay for the most part... except for the whole "What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? " trope...
*shrugs*
Isn't this the first time Obama implored Congress for a new AUMF against ISIL?
What? He should have flown a fighter jet onto an aircraft carrier and given the speech beneath a big, "Mission Accomplished" banner?
::shrug:: Presidents use a variety of locations/means to add gravitas to their message, at least the Oval Office didn't cost the tax payers anything extra.
Conducting a speech at the Oval Office has the "prestige factor"... he spoke there when he announced that we got Bin Laden.
Anyhoo... polling news that's interesting now because it'll be sorta "locked in" due to the holidays.
Regardless of where it was filmed, "To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no- fly list is able to buy a gun." does not sound like a reasonable approach when no one has full defined the criteria for how you get on the no-fly lists, who gets to determine who is on the no-fly list, and what the legal recourse is for people to get off the no-fly list.
Furthermore, to use this "arbitrary" list of people the government doesn't like as a means to prevent/remove a constitutionally protected right is absurdly illegal and abusive of a government supposedly of, for and by the people.
Anyway, I'm just in a gakky mood right now. I'm probably wrong.
kronk wrote: Regardless of where it was filmed, "To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no- fly list is able to buy a gun." does not sound like a reasonable approach when no one has full defined the criteria for how you get on the no-fly lists, who gets to determine who is on the no-fly list, and what the legal recourse is for people to get off the no-fly list.
Furthermore, to use this "arbitrary" list of people the government doesn't like as a means to prevent/remove a constitutionally protected right is absurdly illegal and abusive of a government supposedly of, for and by the people.
Anyway, I'm just in a gakky mood right now. I'm probably wrong.
No. You're insanely right.
Kronk, doing his part to keep the population of Europe steady state since Berlin '87.
kronk wrote: Regardless of where it was filmed, "To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no- fly list is able to buy a gun." does not sound like a reasonable approach when no one has full defined the criteria for how you get on the no-fly lists, who gets to determine who is on the no-fly list, and what the legal recourse is for people to get off the no-fly list.
Furthermore, to use this "arbitrary" list of people the government doesn't like as a means to prevent/remove a constitutionally protected right is absurdly illegal and abusive of a government supposedly of, for and by the people.
Anyway, I'm just in a gakky mood right now. I'm probably wrong.
No. You're insanely right.
Kronk, doing his part to keep the population of Europe steady state since Berlin '87.
True enough, but I don't think the threat of terrorism is out of place in a list of topics that include The War on Terror (GWB), immigration reform (GWB), a balanced budget (Clinton), the Dayton Agreement (Clinton), the nomination of a CIA director (GHW Bush), the decision to seek reelection (Reagan), and your own likely reelection (Reagan).
True enough, but I don't think the threat of terrorism is out of place in a list of topics that include The War on Terror (GWB), immigration reform (GWB), a balanced budget (Clinton), the Dayton Agreement (Clinton), the nomination of a CIA director (GHW Bush), the decision to seek reelection (Reagan), and your own likely reelection (Reagan).
Wow, I had forgotten Regan used it to announce his reelection. Talk about putting the bully pulpit to use. Imagine if a president were to do that today how many people would be up in arms...
True enough, but I don't think the threat of terrorism is out of place in a list of topics that include The War on Terror (GWB), immigration reform (GWB), a balanced budget (Clinton), the Dayton Agreement (Clinton), the nomination of a CIA director (GHW Bush), the decision to seek reelection (Reagan), and your own likely reelection (Reagan).
Wow, I had forgotten Regan used it to announce his reelection. Talk about putting the bully pulpit to use. Imagine if a president were to do that today how many people would be up in arms...
Meh, you'd get a few radicals screaming on facebook, some memes would get posted, we'd all forget about it in a week.
It was a fairly good address I think. He hit some points and used some language I've seen conservatives complain he never uses. Though I doubt anything he could have said would have made Fox watchers happy. He didn't hit very many touchy feely liberal points either. It was a fairly center of the road speech which would be my demographic (lol).
He did the right thing as POTUS. He pointed out some issues and put it on Congress to resolve. It is their job to resolve these issues and its his job to execute their decisions. I still don't know why we let Congress get away with sitting on their thumbs so we can blame the president for everything.
kronk wrote: Regardless of where it was filmed, "To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no- fly list is able to buy a gun." does not sound like a reasonable approach when no one has full defined the criteria for how you get on the no-fly lists, who gets to determine who is on the no-fly list, and what the legal recourse is for people to get off the no-fly list.
Furthermore, to use this "arbitrary" list of people the government doesn't like as a means to prevent/remove a constitutionally protected right is absurdly illegal and abusive of a government supposedly of, for and by the people.
Anyway, I'm just in a gakky mood right now. I'm probably wrong.
Kronk, I brought up this exact issue in the San Bernardino Shooting thread. Denying civil rights (regardless if you agree with them or not) based on a secret list developed with unknown criteria and no means of redress is unconstitutional. But our President and people of like mind just don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around that concept.
Still, everyone is blathering on about gun control. What about the pipe bombs? Why isn't anyone talking about bomb control? Why isn't there a message that terrorists shouldn't be allowed access to bombs? Why are there no calls for Congress to make new laws restricting the availability of pipe bombs? Yes, there is a lot of sarcasm in this paragraph but I do it to make a point. Stop demanding meaningless laws and start looking at the causal factors that make someone go the path of the radical Islamist.
Yup... a ton of American's want to elect a man because they are so fed of with a man that they feel is doing the same exact things as the man they wants to elect says he'll do.
It is a dumb move, but it is not the same as advocating stripping constitutional rights of actual citizens and current legal residents. The feds could stop all immigration and not be violating anyone's constitutional rights.
It is a dumb move, but it is not the same as advocating stripping constitutional rights of actual citizens and current legal residents. The feds could stop all immigration and not be violating anyone's constitutional rights.
Well don't forget Trumps assertions that he would shut down places of worship, for the actions of one person. Screw the First Amendment.
The reason for the lack of bomb control is because the components for bombs have uses other than killing things...unlike gn
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason for the lack of bomb control is because the components for bombs have uses other than killing things...unlike guns where that is their sole purpose.
It is a dumb move, but it is not the same as advocating stripping constitutional rights of actual citizens and current legal residents. The feds could stop all immigration and not be violating anyone's constitutional rights.
Well don't forget Trumps assertions that he would shut down places of worship, for the actions of one person. Screw the First Amendment.
Trust me, I'm against shutting down places of worship. Tannhauser42 specifically equated banning Muslim immigration as going against the foundations of the republic. I just meant to point out, we've banned immigration before. There is no constitutional right to immigrate to the US.
Trust me, I'm against shutting down places of worship. Tannhauser42 specifically equated banning Muslim immigration as going against the foundations of the republic. I just meant to point out, we've banned immigration before. There is no constitutional right to immigrate to the US.
No, but that also isn't what Tannhauser42 called attention to, because it isn't what Trump said. What Trump said is that the US should bar all Muslims from entering the United States, a statement his campaign later clarified to include American citizens returning from abroad.
whembly wrote: Praying that this is the beginning of Trump's decline.
Haven't you been doing that since the beginning?
At first the estimates were that he would have self-destructed gone by Autumn. Then he would have deflated by Winter. Now, I fear that you may be stuck with him for a long time.
Not to mention the country wasn't founded on your right own a gun, which is why that took an amendment. It's not in the declaration of independence, the articles of federation, or in the original constitution. It's fairer to say the nation was founded on the right of rich people to object to being taxed without being able to buy votes...
whembly wrote: Praying that this is the beginning of Trump's decline.
I wouldn't worry. Trump is running roughly even with Rubio and Cruz among people who have an education beyond the high school level. His only real advantage is with those whose education stopped at grade 12; a group of people who don't tend to vote.
IMO the bigger problem is not that Trump might win the nomination, it's that all of the other candidates are so bland and/or horrible that they can't even beat a raving lunatic like Trump. Sure, it's good that it probably sets up an easy win for the democrats, but it's pretty disappointing that the republican party has so little to offer.
Looks like Cruz is trending and will become the "flavor of the month"...
I'm hoping it'll end up as Cruz vs. Rubio for the nomination. The establishment will rally around Rubio (meaning that $$$ will start flow'n) as Cruz will not do well outside of the Primary.
@dogma anyone with more than a high school education should realize putting another corrupt politician in office won't any good either. And it doesn't matter what side they are from.
skyth wrote: The reason for the lack of bomb control is because the components for bombs have uses other than killing things...unlike gn
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason for the lack of bomb control is because the components for bombs have uses other than killing things...unlike guns where that is their sole purpose.
And if I run for president, I will ban all bomb components. I'm looking at you, clock.
Rubio comes off to me as a well polished...puppet. Like he's being controlled by literal strings reciting pre-programmed lines.
Very well polished, but a puppet nonetheless.
My concern with Trump is that his rhetoric is not seen as insane, but rather something to be matched or exceeded by the other candidates in his wing. At this point Trump is just saying provacative stuff to see how far it takes him and how far he can push the boundaries, but at the same time the other candidates repeatedly seem to be having to match his rhetoric just to stay in the game, or simply feel that since Trump went there they can say what they've really been thinking all along
skyth wrote: The reason for the lack of bomb control is because the components for bombs have uses other than killing things...unlike guns where that is their sole purpose.
I said that paragraph was sarcasm. The point being that not a single gun control proposal, if applied to bombs, would made a difference in any way.
The Independent wrote:Donald Trump has called for the internet to be turned off so that children can no longer use it.
The presidential hopeful said that “We’ve got to maybe do something with the internet,” because it was being used to radicalise people. He said that he would “see Bill Gates” so that he could look into “closing it up”.
Speaking at the same event where he called for a “complete shutdown” on Muslims entering the US, Mr Trump laid out a rough plan for stopping the influence of Isis.
Children in America are “watching the internet and they want to be masterminds”, Trump said in a speech.
"We're losing a lot of people because of the internet," Trump said. "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening.
“We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."
The rest of Mr Trump’s speech went on to criticise the “incompetence” of the “stupid people” that are currently in power in the US.
Trump calls for ban on Muslims entering the US
“We used to call it the quiet majority,” he said of his own supporters. “But people are fed up – they are fed up with incompetence, they are fed up with stupid leaders, they are fed up with stupid people.”
Mr Trump was speaking at a campaign rally on the Second World War aircraft carrier the USS Yorktown in South Carolina. The speech came as polls showed that his frontrunner status was being threatened by Ted Cruz, who was shown to be five percentage points ahead of Mr Trump by a Monmouth poll just before the event.
agnosto wrote: Not to mention the country wasn't founded on your right own a gun, which is why that took an amendment. It's not in the declaration of independence, the articles of federation, or in the original constitution. It's fairer to say the nation was founded on the right of rich people to object to being taxed without being able to buy votes...
Actually it was. Without said guns, the rightful owners would still be owning it. If only the Iroquois had proper immigration control...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: IMO the bigger problem is not that Trump might win the nomination, it's that all of the other candidates are so bland and/or horrible that they can't even beat a raving lunatic like Trump. Sure, it's good that it probably sets up an easy win for the democrats, but it's pretty disappointing that the republican party has so little to offer.
Careful, your main candidate is getting a run for her money from a beaten down socialist. If the Trump Train comes at her, it might go through her like Bill through a closet of interns...
Frazzled wrote: [
Indeed, Trump has officially gone part Godwin.
..
headline writers dream.
... one assumes that the "idea" has not been well received overall then ?
IIRC one of the larger Fox shareholders -- although it's "only" something like 5% of the company or something -- is a prominent -- and TBF extremely liberal almost reformesque in nature -- muslim.
... one assumes that the "idea" has not been well received overall then ?
I would hope so, but the truly frightening thing is, when I heard the audio clips of Trump's statements this morning on the radio news, I could hear the applause and cheers from those attending the event. That Americans, in significant numbers, would support this is disturbing.
... one assumes that the "idea" has not been well received overall then ?
I would hope so, but the truly frightening thing is, when I heard the audio clips of Trump's statements this morning on the radio news, I could hear the applause and cheers from those attending the event. That Americans, in significant numbers, would support this is disturbing.
Well, if watching The Man in the High Castle has taught me anything, it's that Americans are more willing to latch on to fascism that most people believe.
Obama’s terror speech perfectly highlights reasons for Trump’s rise
By Bill Schneider
December 7, 2015
Tags: Barack Obama | class warfare | counterterrorism | donald trump
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about counter-terrorism and the United States fight against Islamic State during an address to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, December 6, 2015. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RTX1XH8S
President Barack Obama speaks about counter-terrorism and the United States fight against Islamic State during an address to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, December 6, 2015. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Here’s President Barack Obama on the war against Islamic State: “Our success won’t depend on tough talk or abandoning or values or giving into fear. . . . We will prevail by being strong and smart.”
Here’s Donald Trump: “Every time things get worse, I do better. Because people have confidence in me.” He promised, “We’re going to be so tough and so mean and so nasty.”
What we’re seeing right now in American politics is class warfare. But not the kind of class warfare Bernie Sanders would understand. It’s not the working class versus the 1 percent. It’s the working class versus the educated elite. In fact, one of the richest men in the world is leading the revolt: Trump.
Trump’s support for the Republican nomination is not defined by ideology or age or gender. It’s defined by education. Among GOP voters with a college degree in the latest CNN poll, Trump comes in fourth with just 18 percent. But he has a huge lead among non-college voters — 46 percent. No other candidate comes close.
Today, in the United States, the richer you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The better educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. We saw it in the last presidential race. It was Mitt Romney, the prince of wealth, versus Obama, the prince of education.
Romney lost because of his elitist economic values. He was Mr. 1 Percent, disdainful of the “47 percent” who, he argued, are dependent on government. Trump, on the other hand, is rallying white working class voters. Not around their economic interests. Around their values.
Trump is the anti-Obama. He was the first Republican candidate to challenge Obama on the “birther” issue. To Trump supporters, Obama is the ultimate educated snob — the candidate who, in 2012, was disdainful of hard-pressed small-town voters who “cling to guns and religion . . . or anti-immigrant sentiment.”
Obama insists on facts. “We need to know all the facts,” he said immediately after the San Bernadino killings. Trump doesn’t deal in facts. The New York Times just completed a comprehensive analysis of every public statement by Trump over the past week. The conclusion? “Mr. Trump uses rhetoric to erode people’s trust in facts, numbers, nuance, government and the news media.” He still claims he saw “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey cheering and celebrating after the 9/11 attacks, even though there is no factual basis for the claim.
Trump does not hide his contempt for Obama. “There is something going on with him that we don’t know about,” Trump said at a recent campaign rally. He doesn’t think Obama’s smart: “How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?” Unlike himself: “When you’re really, really smart like I am . . . ” Trump said. Trump spent his first two college years at Fordham University before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Wharton School. The two men exhibit two different kinds of intelligence — book smarts versus money smarts. Guess which one Americans admire more.
Obama is thoughtful, knowledgeable and progressive: the professor-in-chief. He’s always had trouble connecting with white working-class voters. He lost them to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries.
Given the anger and fear that has seized the country, a lot of voters are looking for an altogether different kind of leader than Obama. “The nation needs a wartime president,” Senator Ted Cruz said. Someone who can be trusted to keep them safe. Trump pledges to keep out immigrants who might be recruited to the terrorist cause. Obama calls for gun control. “As if somehow terrorists care about what our gun laws are,” presidential aspirant Senator Marco Rubio said.
Resentment of education has always been stronger than resentment of wealth in the United States. Especially since the educated elite has come to embrace liberal cultural values — values that conservatives denounce as “political correctness.”
No one is less politically correct than Trump. He claimed that some people failed to report suspicions about the California killers because of concerns about racial profiling. “We have become so politically correct that we don’t know what the hell we’re doing,” Trump said.
Trump’s appeal to Republicans isn’t based on conservative ideology. It’s because many Republicans share his hatred of Obama. Republicans are rallying to Trump’s cause and may even nominate him. But white working class voters are a shrinking part of the electorate. Most Americans will be uneasy at the prospect of electing a hater to be their president. In fact, a new NBC News-Telemundo poll shows Hillary Clinton beating him by 12 points.
agnosto wrote: Not to mention the country wasn't founded on your right own a gun, which is why that took an amendment. It's not in the declaration of independence, the articles of federation, or in the original constitution. It's fairer to say the nation was founded on the right of rich people to object to being taxed without being able to buy votes...
Actually it was. Without said guns, the rightful owners would still be owning it. If only the Iroquois had proper immigration control...
Smallpox killed more Native Americans than guns did in those early years; when someone offers you a free blanket, you say "no". The sad, historical, truth is that the scattered tribes around the eastern seaboard weren't properly prepared for the duplicitous nature of the colonial "settlers"; had they been organized, no amount of period guns could have saved the white people who decided this land would be theirs. Bows and hatchets were much more efficient killing tools and more suitable to the terrain than muskets. I took about 15 seconds for a trained person not being shot with arrows or stabbed to death to load a musket during the revolutionary war. The revolutionaries also would have lost the war if not for picking up some of the strategies that that the tribes implemented in their warfare (i.e. guerrilla tactics). If confederacies of tribes had formulated earlier in a concerted push to oust the settlers, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Frazzled wrote: Careful, your main candidate is getting a run for her money from a beaten down socialist. If the Trump Train comes at her, it might go through her like Bill through a closet of interns...
Agreed. This election season is going to be one where we're faced with picking the lesser of evils and hoping that the country survives the following 4 years.
I didn't see anyone say small pox blankets. It is a fact though that Small Pox wiped out about 90% of the Native American population in New England before the first real settlement was established
agnosto wrote: Not to mention the country wasn't founded on your right own a gun, which is why that took an amendment. It's not in the declaration of independence, the articles of federation, or in the original constitution. It's fairer to say the nation was founded on the right of rich people to object to being taxed without being able to buy votes...
Actually it was. Without said guns, the rightful owners would still be owning it. If only the Iroquois had proper immigration control...
Smallpox killed more Native Americans than guns did in those early years; when someone offers you a free blanket, you say "no". The sad, historical, truth is that the scattered tribes around the eastern seaboard weren't properly prepared for the duplicitous nature of the colonial "settlers"; had they been organized, no amount of period guns could have saved the white people who decided this land would be theirs. Bows and hatchets were much more efficient killing tools and more suitable to the terrain than muskets. I took about 15 seconds for a trained person not being shot with arrows or stabbed to death to load a musket during the revolutionary war. The revolutionaries also would have lost the war if not for picking up some of the strategies that that the tribes implemented in their warfare (i.e. guerrilla tactics). If confederacies of tribes had formulated earlier in a concerted push to oust the settlers, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Don't act like the natives weren't duplicitous in their actions either. The relations between Native Americans and Colonials were insanely complex, and just saying "white guys screwed not white guys" is a ridiculous simplification of matters that does an injustice to true history.
Yeah, they took advantage of the white-guy to distraction to get an edge over their own internal conflicts. I'd really recommend Mayflower, as it has quite a bit about that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, they took advantage of the white-guy to distraction to get an edge over their own internal conflicts. I'd really recommend Mayflower, as it has quite a bit about that.
What? The Iroquois nation would never be so dishonest!
LordofHats wrote: I'm just saying. The Native Americans kicked the Viking's buts so hard they ended up remembered as Demons in Nordic folklore
Also, please not that small pox blankets myth. That was debunked so long ago
Blankets not needed, diseases spread via normal means hammered native populations.
However bows were fast but relatively short range. Kentucky rifles were prized on the frontier. It wasn't until horses were married to good bowmen that we reproduced the Mongols in the US.
djones520 wrote: I didn't see anyone say small pox blankets. It is a fact though that Small Pox wiped out about 90% of the Native American population in New England before the first real settlement was established
Ahh, I missed that part. Still though, Small Pox, amongst other diseases endemic to Europeans were just devastating to the native populations. Innocent circumstances that no one at the time could have foreseen have more to do with the "fall" of the Native American powers in the America's then any overt hostile action that was taken.
Frazzled wrote: Blankets not needed, diseases spread via normal means hammered native populations.
I don't disagree with that, though I will say I often find the population guesstimating to be a pointless endeavor. There's insufficient information to determine how many people really lived on the NA continent prior to the Colonial era. Numbers get tossed around plenty, but they're almost always empty, based more in opinion revolving around maximizing.minimizing the demonization those mean Europeans for not having discovered germs yet. Not to mention the issue of disease is often misstated. The more prosperous civilizations in North America (Aztecs, Inca, Mississippi Rive People for example), all collapsed within years of Columbian contact. They have developed roads and trade networks that facilitated a rapid spread of disease. More isolated groups with less advanced cultures endured; The Maya, because they were actually still around, became a thorn in the side of Spain's colonial interests for nearly a century, precisely because they were dispersed and lacked at the time developed networks (insulating them from the rapid spread of disease).
Many of the native groups later encountered by Colonial settlers survived for the precise reason they were not as far along the civilization curve as the native groups who were wiped out over the course of a few years. Many of them were nomadic prior to colonization or semi-Nomadic.
Not to mention Europeans themselves ended up on the receiving end of this same trend in some parts of Central America and the Caribbean (Several Spanish and French colonies had to be completely replaced every decade or so, because Malaria wiped everyone out).
djones520 wrote: I didn't see anyone say small pox blankets. It is a fact though that Small Pox wiped out about 90% of the Native American population in New England before the first real settlement was established
Smallpox killed more Native Americans than guns did in those early years; when someone offers you a free blanket, you say "no".
.
Someone sure did imply smallpox blankets.
While the historic accuracy of the blankets is questioned by some historians and pundits, some of whom I would argue have ulterior motives to whitewash history, surviving communication from military commanders mentioned "inoculating" the native population through the use of pox-ridden blankets from Ft. Pitt during the French and Indian War . Also, the Trent Diary discusses the use of smallpox blankets to thin the native populations.
The fact stands, however the disease was transmitted, that the pox killed more native americans than guns ever did.
While the historic accuracy of the blankets is questioned by some historians and pundits, some of whom I would argue have ulterior motives to whitewash history, surviving communication from military commanders mentioned "inoculating" the native population through the use of pox-ridden blankets from Ft. Pitt during the French and Indian War . Also, the Trent Diary discusses the use of smallpox blankets to thin the native populations.
The man who suggested it was prompty brow beaten by his commanding officer for suggesting something obscene and later removed from his command just for suggesting the idea
d-usa wrote: If you think about it, Trump's rise mirrors the rise of the various nationalist and radical right parties in the different European countries.
Its almost like the world has been in the midst of a decade long recession, and people are turning to new leadership to get them out of the mess. Does this new leadership have an affinity for brown and cool marches?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Ahh, I missed that part. Still though, Small Pox, amongst other diseases endemic to Europeans were just devastating to the native populations. Innocent circumstances that no one at the time could have foreseen have more to do with the "fall" of the Native American powers in the America's then any overt hostile action that was taken.
Indeed. It would have been the same if the Chinese, Indians, or Ottomans had landed instead.
He can't even out-poll Trump, a raving lunatic who has no hope of winning the election. You might like him but he's an incredibly weak candidate.
Hermain Cain was leading the poll at this point in '12.
Polls are useful now (ie, anyone polling <5% ought to think about dropping out)... but, I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on these polls at the moment.
While the historic accuracy of the blankets is questioned by some historians and pundits, some of whom I would argue have ulterior motives to whitewash history, surviving communication from military commanders mentioned "inoculating" the native population through the use of pox-ridden blankets from Ft. Pitt during the French and Indian War . Also, the Trent Diary discusses the use of smallpox blankets to thin the native populations.
The fact stands, however the disease was transmitted, that the pox killed more native americans than guns ever did.
IIRC, there's been some debate as to whether Columbus did this as well.... Though I once had a (terrible) history teacher attempt to defend the Europeans saying flat out that "they didn't know" the blankets were small pox ridden
Also, the groups that Columbus met somehow or another exposed Europeans to things like Syphillis which apparently had never been encountered before.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Also, the groups that Columbus met somehow or another exposed Europeans to things like Syphillis which apparently had never been encountered before.
There's a European Ghost somewhere who is extremely embarrassed about that matter
While the historic accuracy of the blankets is questioned by some historians and pundits, some of whom I would argue have ulterior motives to whitewash history, surviving communication from military commanders mentioned "inoculating" the native population through the use of pox-ridden blankets from Ft. Pitt during the French and Indian War . Also, the Trent Diary discusses the use of smallpox blankets to thin the native populations.
The fact stands, however the disease was transmitted, that the pox killed more native americans than guns ever did.
IIRC, there's been some debate as to whether Columbus did this as well.... Though I once had a (terrible) history teacher attempt to defend the Europeans saying flat out that "they didn't know" the blankets were small pox ridden
Also, the groups that Columbus met somehow or another exposed Europeans to things like Syphillis which apparently had never been encountered before.
Yeah, the disease street was two way. Much to Henry VIII's lament.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Also, the groups that Columbus met somehow or another exposed Europeans to things like Syphillis which apparently had never been encountered before.
There's a European Ghost somewhere who is extremely embarrassed about that matter
Certainly not the remaining nobility just prior to the French Revolution
One part of Trump's raving that got a few lines over here was his assertion (based on some poll or the other) that as many as 25% of American muslims might find it acceptable to use violence against other Americans. Ofc, no info on how the question was phrased or anything.
But it's a pretty odd thing to mention - how many Americans are absolutely AGAINST sometimes using violence vs their countrymen?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've always said that the worst thing that America ever did was win the revolution.
You guys would have gotten your freedom eventually, but most IMPORTANTLY:
You would have been a bigger version of Canada
Too bad you killed that dream, because I know that most Americans on this site would love to be Canadian
Thats so wrong its not funny. You would now all be Texan, or at worst Mexican, after we kicked your milquetoast butts from here to Gloster, just because we're bored.
Im paraphrasing what someone told me, and its pretty chilling.
Pretty much that hitler didnt campaign on killing jewish, but on nationalism and "Germany for germany" and how it doesnt start out as hatred for others, but love for the country, that overzealish nationalism is what lead to the rise of hitler, not overt hatred.
Not the complete story obviously, but not that different from Trump huh?
Except Hitler's desire to exterminate the Jews was never a secret. I don't recall Trump writing a book about how the Muslims are to blame for all problems and should be exterminated. He's just an idiot who spouts whatever comes immediately to mind.
Wasnt tht book after his rise to power though?
Its been awhile sense I read up on WWII history and The history channel only shows pawnstars, so im out of the loop on WWII history.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wasnt tht book after his rise to power though?
Its been awhile sense I read up on WWII history and The history channel only shows pawnstars, so im out of the loop on WWII history.
No. Volume 1 was published in 1925 and Volume 2 in 1926, and he wrote it while in prison. Almost 10 years before he was elected. The book had shocking popularity as well. Which makes some of the shock post-WW2 at the atrocities he committed a little baffling. He was not hiding his desire for genocide, it was people willfully ignoring the warning signs.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wasnt tht book after his rise to power though?
Its been awhile sense I read up on WWII history and The history channel only shows pawnstars, so im out of the loop on WWII history.
Well, if that was your main 'source' you might have been 'out of the loop' for longer than you thought!
While the historic accuracy of the blankets is questioned by some historians and pundits, some of whom I would argue have ulterior motives to whitewash history, surviving communication from military commanders mentioned "inoculating" the native population through the use of pox-ridden blankets from Ft. Pitt during the French and Indian War . Also, the Trent Diary discusses the use of smallpox blankets to thin the native populations.
The man who suggested it was prompty brow beaten by his commanding officer for suggesting something obscene and later removed from his command just for suggesting the idea
I was speaking of the events during the French and Indian War, were you speaking to another period?
On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
It is not known who conceived the plan, but there's no doubt it met with the approval of the British military in America and may have been common practice. Sir Jeffery Amherst, commander of British forces in North America, wrote July 7, 1763, probably unaware of the events at Fort Pitt: "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them." He ordered the extirpation of the Indians and said no prisoners should be taken. About a week later, he wrote to Bouquet: "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."
whembly wrote: Hermain Cain was leading the poll at this point in '12.
Polls are useful now (ie, anyone polling <5% ought to think about dropping out)... but, I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on these polls at the moment.
You guys ever think that donald trump is just one long running performance art piece by a single guy trying to prove that americans will believe the craziest gak
hotsauceman1 wrote: You guys ever think that donald trump is just one long running performance art piece by a single guy trying to prove that americans will believe the craziest gak
Yes. My sincerest hope is that this is all a game of "gotcha" or the game of a rich man proving people are dumb rubes.
Trump is a negotiator. He will spit out the most extreme position as the start point. As the primary season goes on and the number of candidates in the race goes down, expect him to 'refine' those positions (as much as he needs to). Then (if he gets the nomination) he'll likely refine more towards the middle while still making the D candidate look far left and capitalizing on what he thinks R base wants to hear.
CptJake wrote: Trump is a negotiator. He will spit out the most extreme position as the start point. As the primary season goes on and the number of candidates in the race goes down, expect him to 'refine' those positions (as much as he needs to). Then (if he gets the nomination) he'll likely refine more towards the middle while still making the D candidate look far left and capitalizing on what he thinks R base wants to hear.
This is actually closer to the truth and something that we've seen in at least the last few elections, cater to the wing-nuts to get the nomination and then pull more towards the middle as election time comes around to attract the people in the middle who would otherwise vote democrat rather than elect someone who sounds insane into office (I'm in this category).
CptJake wrote: Trump is a negotiator. He will spit out the most extreme position as the start point. As the primary season goes on and the number of candidates in the race goes down, expect him to 'refine' those positions (as much as he needs to). Then (if he gets the nomination) he'll likely refine more towards the middle while still making the D candidate look far left and capitalizing on what he thinks R base wants to hear.
The problem with that hypothesis is that there is no way to "refine" his "ideas" to the middle as they have no substance to refine in the first place, being based on ignorance and stupidity.
Trump is not a smart man. He's an idiot who would have about the same amount of wealth now (and maybe more) if he had just invested his inheritance rather than trying to play at being a businessman.
I think he has gone way too far into extremism for any self respecting moderate to consider him viable. If this is just his strategy as a negotiator he might be the worst out there. How could doing what is doing now be quickly forgotten in a matter of a few months?
BrotherGecko wrote: I think he has gone way too far into extremism for any self respecting moderate to consider him viable. If this is just his strategy as a negotiator he might be the worst out there. How could doing what is doing now be quickly forgotten in a matter of a few months?
This. If Trump were a police negotiator his opening line to a hostage taker would probably be along the lines of "Okay, we're going to assault in 5 minutes unless you kill yourself now". Which is all very good for being tough on crime and mean and nasty, but not very good at getting hostages out alive.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You guys ever think that donald trump is just one long running performance art piece by a single guy trying to prove that americans will believe the craziest gak
Or a plant by the HRC campaign, and he's digging the publicity.
Reports are that he's spent almost no money. He's a publicity addict and this is the ultimate rush.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You guys ever think that donald trump is just one long running performance art piece by a single guy trying to prove that americans will believe the craziest gak
Or a plant by the HRC campaign, and he's digging the publicity.
Reports are that he's spent almost no money. He's a publicity addict and this is the ultimate rush.
The problem really has nothing to do with how insane/racist/stupid/idiotic/vile/whatever Trump really is, the problem is with the fact that so many people are supporting him.
That's why I think that Trump and his supporters are our domestic rise of the extreme right nationalist front.
I was annoyed with the Tea Party, but at the core I still think that the Tea Party just hated government. This group hates actual living breathing people.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You guys ever think that donald trump is just one long running performance art piece by a single guy trying to prove that americans will believe the craziest gak
Or a plant by the HRC campaign, and he's digging the publicity.
Reports are that he's spent almost no money. He's a publicity addict and this is the ultimate rush.
An being a monarch is his dream.
With politics starting to resemble royalty with political dynasties, lifelong terms in office, and what amounts to inheriting offices...........
hotsauceman1 wrote: You guys ever think that donald trump is just one long running performance art piece by a single guy trying to prove that americans will believe the craziest gak
Yes. My sincerest hope is that this is all a game of "gotcha" or the game of a rich man proving people are dumb rubes.
There is a theory out there that Trump never thought he would get as far as he is and it was all a publicity stunt from the beginning and now that he has been in the lead for some time, he is doing everything he can to torpedo his candidacy with inanity. Of course that theory would imply that 1)Trump has some modicum of rationality underneath that coif and 2) he had no idea that a sizable minority of the country was so racist and gak awful stupid.
d-usa wrote: The problem really has nothing to do with how insane/racist/stupid/idiotic/vile/whatever Trump really is, the problem is with the fact that so many people are supporting him.
That's why I think that Trump and his supporters are our domestic rise of the extreme right nationalist front.
I was annoyed with the Tea Party, but at the core I still think that the Tea Party just hated government. This group hates actual living breathing people.
I would not just say right. Many of his actual policies are punctually main line Democratic-health care for example. Concerns over immigration is a concern for a majority of US pollers-just neither party cares.
I was annoyed with the Tea Party, but at the core I still think that the Tea Party just hated government. This group hates actual living breathing people.
Anecdotally, the problem I have with this is that my casual notice of Trump supporters, is that far too many of them are also Tea Party.
Obviously, there's nothing that says the Tea Party, or Conservatism, Classical Liberalism/Progressive Liberalism, etc. are all mutually exclusive.
d-usa wrote: The problem really has nothing to do with how insane/racist/stupid/idiotic/vile/whatever Trump really is, the problem is with the fact that so many people are supporting him.
That's why I think that Trump and his supporters are our domestic rise of the extreme right nationalist front.
I was annoyed with the Tea Party, but at the core I still think that the Tea Party just hated government. This group hates actual living breathing people.
I would not just say right. Many of his actual policies are punctually main line Democratic-health care for example. Concerns over immigration is a concern for a majority of US pollers-just neither party cares.
Except he is way past health care and mainline immigration.
It's the fact that there is excitement and support for the "Mexicans are rapists and murderers", "mark Muslims", "put them in camps", and now "forbid all Muslims, even Citizens, from entering the country" ideas.
it doesn't matter that they are very well nonsensical ideas that won't go anywhere. People are supporting those ideas, and that is what is dangerous.
d-usa wrote: The problem really has nothing to do with how insane/racist/stupid/idiotic/vile/whatever Trump really is, the problem is with the fact that so many people are supporting him.
That's why I think that Trump and his supporters are our domestic rise of the extreme right nationalist front.
I was annoyed with the Tea Party, but at the core I still think that the Tea Party just hated government. This group hates actual living breathing people.
I was annoyed with the Tea Party, but at the core I still think that the Tea Party just hated government. This group hates actual living breathing people.
Anecdotally, the problem I have with this is that my casual notice of Trump supporters, is that far too many of them are also Tea Party.
Obviously, there's nothing that says the Tea Party, or Conservatism, Classical Liberalism/Progressive Liberalism, etc. are all mutually exclusive.
Yeah, there are a few in my family that fall in both camps.
But I didn't want to automatically lump them both in together because of that. I've also known a few Tea Party folks that look at Trump and get scared.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You guys ever think that donald trump is just one long running performance art piece by a single guy trying to prove that americans will believe the craziest gak
Yes. My sincerest hope is that this is all a game of "gotcha" or the game of a rich man proving people are dumb rubes.
There is a theory out there that Trump never thought he would get as far as he is and it was all a publicity stunt from the beginning and now that he has been in the lead for some time, he is doing everything he can to torpedo his candidacy with inanity. Of course that theory would imply that 1)Trump has some modicum of rationality underneath that coif and 2) he had no idea that a sizable minority of the country was so racist and gak awful stupid.
Why are they stupid? Let me Trumpsplain it to you: -Many of the Eastern European countries have refused Syrians-Poland just announced it. Considering their history with the Turks, there is some reasoning there.
-Trade deals: how many have helped the working class? Is there a working class left?
-Same to same for illegal immigration that both parties actually support.
Now the fun part will be when people actually vote in primaries. Right now its just prom queen polling. I still put money on Rubio and someone as VP.
it doesn't matter that they are very well nonsensical ideas that won't go anywhere. People are supporting those ideas, and that is what is dangerous.
Especially when you consider that, if you peruse a site like Facebook, where figures like George Takei are raising red flags saying, "whoa, hold on there folks... I personally was in the kind of situation you want to reimagine and emulate. This ain't cool at all"
And you have people responding with, "shut your libtarded mouth" or similar negative phrases.
it doesn't matter that they are very well nonsensical ideas that won't go anywhere. People are supporting those ideas, and that is what is dangerous.
Especially when you consider that, if you peruse a site like Facebook, where figures like George Takei are raising red flags saying, "whoa, hold on there folks... I personally was in the kind of situation you want to reimagine and emulate. This ain't cool at all"
And you have people responding with, "shut your libtarded mouth" or similar negative phrases.
I have faith that the US military will protect us from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC should the situation arise.
Donald Trump is the physical embodiment of the worst of online discussion forums. He is the ephemeral made real. Funny how the leader of the GOP primary would get suspended quickly from dakka.
whembly wrote: Hermain Cain was leading the poll at this point in '12.
Polls are useful now (ie, anyone polling <5% ought to think about dropping out)... but, I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on these polls at the moment.
bush, part of the dynasty full of some of the worst presidents in U.S. History. Also, he completely 
on the subject of terror watch lists.
