Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Obama really didn't do himself any favors today at the G20...



Even CNN's Amanpour was critical of Obama:



Ouchie!

When you lose Diane Feinsten(D)... maybe Obama needs to re-evaluate?

And this is why it's hard to take you seriously.

Statements like this:

Even CNN's Amanpour was critical of Obama

Who cares that the person is from CNN?

They're part of the liberal media don'tchaknow!

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why it's hard to take you seriously.

Statements like this:

Even CNN's Amanpour was critical of Obama

Who cares that the person is from CNN?

Ah... so attacking the messenger is your tactic for today.

Cool.

Amanpour definitely has a liberal bias and a member of the F.O.O club (the "FOO" club being friends of obama).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
They're part of the liberal media don'tchaknow!

Eh... that's true.

But no one does breaking new better than CNN.

15 state (US of A) Governors are refusing to accept Syrian refugee's. I don't blame them.

 Jihadin wrote:
15 state (US of A) Governors are refusing to accept Syrian refugee's. I don't blame them.

Unfortunately, they have ZERO say in the matter. The Federal Gov't, not the states determines immigration policy. The Feds can bring them in to any state they want, initially housing them on federal land, and give them green cards. Once they are legal residents no Governor can deny them any rights guaranteed to any legal resident.

If folks get their congress critters to defund this you can stop it. The States should get the 17th Amendment repealed, that way they can use their senators to block stuff like this.

Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:

Hines v. Davidowitz (among others), “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.”

'For local interests the several states of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.

Constitutional Basis: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (this goes beyond repealing the 17th)

James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."

Before someone starts parroting the derposphere, Obama did not say he isn't interested in "America winning" or "Ameican leadership." This is what he actually said:

What I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow in the abstract make America look tough. Or make me look tough.
And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reedx and I see a 25 year old kid who is paralyzed or who has lost his limbs and some of those are people I've ordered into battle.

And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may. We’ll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it’s entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisers are better than the chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate.

But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership, or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with, that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people. And to protect people in the region who are getting killed. And to protect our allies in people like France. I’m too busy for that.

So the derposphere includes anyone who doesn't support Obama fully?

Christina Amanpour was critical this morning...

Shoot, on MSNBC even Mika couldn't say anything good...

They're derping good?

 whembly wrote:

a) Presidential pardons are damn near plenary... via constitution: "...grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Which is why a President's decision to pardon themselves, for any reason, has no bearing on whether or not Congress can move to impeach.

 whembly wrote:

b) Having said that, if a theoretical Pardon is issued on first day of Presidency... then, Congress has nothing to invoke articles of impeachment.

The pardon is irrelevant. Either Congress has grounds for impeachment, or it does not.

 whembly wrote:

d) Point of clarification, Bill Clinton *was* impeached (in the House). The Senate couldn't *remove* him from office. It proves an incredibly high bar to remove any elected officials.

I specifically stated that he was impeached:

 dogma wrote:

I actually think that the opposite would be true. For example, if Hillary Clinton were to take office and pardon herself, I can't imagine a scenario in which the GOP wouldn't fall all over themselves building a case for impeachment as they could easily use that single action to generate the popular support they failed to build when they impeached Bill.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

d) Point of clarification, Bill Clinton *was* impeached (in the House). The Senate couldn't *remove* him from office. It proves an incredibly high bar to remove any elected officials.

I specifically stated that he was impeached.

I misunderstood your point there... my bad.

I'd still submit that which ever party claiming "I'll bring articles of impeachment to the President"... is simply using it as a bully pulpit to get their point across.

Either that... or I'm jaded.

 whembly wrote:
So the derposphere includes anyone who doesn't support Obama fully?

Wait, where did you get this from? I am honestly curious as to how you took what he said and produced "anyone who doesn't support Obama fully = derposphere" please explain your reasoning if you can because I am quite interested to hear it.

 agnosto wrote:
Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:

...

James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."

It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

And yep, it's 2015 and we still have mainstream republican presidential candidates attending "the bible says we should execute people for being gay" conferences. Next time anyone says the two parties are equally horrible I'm pointing them back to this.

(Warning: the video of the conference included in the article is just horrifying. Watch at your own risk.)

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:

...

James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."

It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.

We are a nation of immigrants that hates immigrants. Always have been. The current attitude is nothing new; it was there before the statue was even built, and it will be there when our ape-overlords are condemning human immigrants for calling them dirty.

And yep, it's 2015 and we still have mainstream republican presidential candidates attending "the bible says we should execute people for being gay" conferences.

Well the bible also says to kill people who commit adultery, so this can be considered a stepping stone to finally giving Bill Clinton the most final of 'impeachments'...

sirlynchmob wrote:

ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.

Nah, don't tear it down... just paint a Tom Brady jersey onto it, replace the torch with an upraised hand flipping the bird... then change the placard to read something like, "Welcome to 'Murica. Dont be a [female dog], bootstraps and more bootstraps"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.

Nah, don't tear it down... just paint a Tom Brady jersey onto it, replace the torch with an upraised hand flipping the bird... then change the placard to read something like, "Welcome to 'Murica. Dont be a [female dog], bootstraps and more bootstraps"

Don't forget to include an AR-15 in there somewhere, too.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:

...

James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."

It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.

No where in there does it say Terrorists. This intensive background check Obama said is damn near impossible. Syrian government is tore up from the floor up. Hell did not some of the Terrorist enter the EU on Refugee status. That PS4 peer to peer comm was quite clever

Even if you could get info and ensure you were not letting in active terrorists there are big issues with this.

The refugee population is going to be very susceptible to radicalization where ever they settle. They don't assimilate well, they will have a hard time economically. They will be targeted by radicalizing elements, and frankly we've already seen examples of that radicalization (Boston, Ft Hood and so on).

 Jihadin wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:

...

James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."

It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.

No where in there does it say Terrorists. This intensive background check Obama said is damn near impossible. Syrian government is tore up from the floor up. Hell did not some of the Terrorist enter the EU on Refugee status. That PS4 peer to peer comm was quite clever

It's about living up to our stated principles. We're either a nation that topples governments because they're oppressing their people and promulgating terrorism or we're a bunch of mewling babies hiding behind a closed border. Anyone who wants to see America become irrelevant on the world stage should support closing the borders; hermit kingdom 2.0 here we come!

The statue of liberty doesn't say, "Send all of these to me, except for Syrians, feth them, they can watch their children drown." We can close our borders and put a live body on every square foot of border space and still a terrorist could waltz in if they wanted. Heck, we've been on this war on drugs thing for decades and we still can't stop drug boats and tunnels.

No. The difference is in the hard work that DHS and the other alphabet agencies are putting in to keep us all safe so we can continue doing the inane day-to-day crap that we all do.

Immigration policy needs to fit the times, and it is silly to ignore that fact.

In the 1800s and early 1900s we had land to settle and industrial jobs needing huge labor pools. That meant we needed a very open immigration policy.

We ain't at that point no more. Our economy is stagnant, we have an abundance of labor already sitting idle.

 agnosto wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:

...

James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."

It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.

No where in there does it say Terrorists. This intensive background check Obama said is damn near impossible. Syrian government is tore up from the floor up. Hell did not some of the Terrorist enter the EU on Refugee status. That PS4 peer to peer comm was quite clever

It's about living up to our stated principles. We're either a nation that topples governments because they're oppressing their people and promulgating terrorism or we're a bunch of mewling babies hiding behind a closed border. Anyone who wants to see America become irrelevant on the world stage should support closing the borders; hermit kingdom 2.0 here we come!

The statue of liberty doesn't say, "Send all of these to me, except for Syrians, feth them, they can watch their children drown." We can close our borders and put a live body on every square foot of border space and still a terrorist could waltz in if they wanted. Heck, we've been on this war on drugs thing for decades and we still can't stop drug boats and tunnels.

No. The difference is in the hard work that DHS and the other alphabet agencies are putting in to keep us all safe so we can continue doing the inane day-to-day crap that we all do.

Some of you guys seem to be forgetting that right there next to the Statue of Liberty is Ellis Island. You know, the island that was one of our primary immigrant processing centers where we screened aspiring immigrants and refused admittance to anyone we didn't want. Not to mention that fact that we've had strict requirements and limitations on immigrants for as long as we've had the Statue of Liberty:
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
The Geary Act of 1892
The Gentleman's Agreement with Japan in 1907
The Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1901
The Immigration Act of 1917
The Emergency Quota Act of 1921

We've had immigration laws banning certain people from lawfully immigrating into the USA for our entire national history. Congress could outlaw the immigration of Syrian refugees tomorrow if they wanted.

 CptJake wrote:
Immigration policy needs to fit the times, and it is silly to ignore that fact.

In the 1800s and early 1900s we had land to settle and industrial jobs needing huge labor pools. That meant we needed a very open immigration policy.

We ain't at that point no more. Our economy is stagnant, we have an abundance of labor already sitting idle.

While I agree that policy of all stripes should reflect the realities of the time, I recommend that you look into the matter a bit deeper. Name a data matrix and you'll see that foreign-born immigrants are outperforming their US born peers. While low-skilled immigrants with little to no education were the norm at the turn of 20th century, the current reality is that 28% of foreign-born persons currently have a bachelor's degree or higher while that number is 30% US-born; well within the +/- margin for error to make it statistically the same.


I will grant you that about 30% still have less than a HS education BUT if you look at the economic indices, you'll find that these people are filling niches in the service or agriculture sectors where employers have the most difficulty finding US-born candidates for employment.


So, what about crime. These dirty vermin have to be raping and murdering their way across the country, right? Nope, not so much.


I know we have a strong tradition in the US of blaming immigrants for whatever woes but if you actually look at numbers, we're our own worst enemies, not these newcomers.

Let's talk terrorism. Since 9/11, the US has accepted over 2million lawful, permanent residents from majority Muslim nations. Every year the US accepts over 100,000 refugees and asylum seekers from around the world of which about 40,000 are from majority Muslim nations.
Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/16/since-911-u-s-accepted-2-million-migrants-majority-muslim-nations/
How many of these people committed an act of terrorism? Zero.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...

I do not believe that refugees would pass the NICS background check on a Form 4473. However France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out

 agnosto wrote:

While I agree that policy of all stripes should reflect the realities of the time, I recommend that you look into the matter a bit deeper. Name a data matrix and you'll see that foreign-born immigrants are outperforming their US born peers. While low-skilled immigrants with little to no education were the norm at the turn of 20th century, the current reality is that 28% of foreign-born persons currently have a bachelor's degree or higher while that number is 30% US-born; well within the +/- margin for error to make it statistically the same.

And this group of refugees? What are the educational stats on them? I think you will find that you are looking at low-skill with little to no education being the norm.

And again, this will be a group that is prone to radicalization and not prone to assimilation.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...

I do not believe that refugees would pass the NICS background check on a Form 4473. However France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out

Yes. We saw how that worked out.

To pretend that it would somehow work out differently because of some yahoo in the crowds having pistols is pure and simple fantasy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...

I do not believe that refugees would pass the NICS background check on a Form 4473. However France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out

Yes. We saw how that worked out.

To pretend that it would somehow work out differently because of some yahoo in the crowds having pistols is pure and simple fantasy.

Legality of refugees purchasing firearms in US, and the availability of firearms through illicit means =/= a discussion on whether or not a CCW holder would have had any impact on the Paris attack.

How you managed to conflate these two concepts is beyond me. This is the second time you have completely mis-read what I actually said. Is there something in particular that is causing you to confuse what I say, or is it a knee jerk reaction to the person posting?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...

I do not believe that refugees would pass the NICS background check on a Form 4473. However France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out

Yes. We saw how that worked out.

To pretend that it would somehow work out differently because of some yahoo in the crowds having pistols is pure and simple fantasy.

Legality of refugees purchasing firearms in US, and the availability of firearms through illicit means =/= a discussion on whether or not a CCW holder would have had any impact on the Paris attack.

Then make that argument. See how little time it took you to expound upon that statement?

Vague statements like "France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out" are open-ended nonsense and effectively contribute nothing to the discussion at hand.

How you managed to conflate these two concepts is beyond me.

It really isn't too difficult to grasp as to why I'm "conflating these two concepts" given your posting style of "Let me put out a tiny statement that says nothing then get offended when someone 'mistakes' my intentions!".

This is the second time you have completely mis-read what I actually said. Is there something in particular that is causing you to confuse what I say, or is it a knee jerk reaction to the person posting?

MAYBE if you actually made a reasonable post rather than make nebulous statements, people could reply to your argument?

One can't do a intensive background check if one country is all jacked up. One can only do a intensive background on what the refugee (Individual/Family members) says and put down on paper. Their is no way to verify the identity and/or background of the individuals.

Mind you its Department of State granting the visa's and USCIS eventually getting around to verifying. Who in Syrian government is verifying or even willing to cooperate.

Remember the Bosnian refugee's? The one's we kept at Ft. Dix NJ for a good long time under guard? Who we sent back....