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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

Hopefully. He's moved firmly into "making gak up" territory now.

And sadly, he's drug pretty much every other Republican candidate with him into that territory.

he didn't drag them, they live in that territory. The best comment about the first debate was "only 3% of what they said during the debate was true"

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

Hopefully. He's moved firmly into "making gak up" territory now.

And sadly, he's drug pretty much every other Republican candidate with him into that territory.

he didn't drag them, they live in that territory. The best comment about the first debate was "only 3% of what they said during the debate was true"

Well, I hadn't heard anything "crazy" from Kasich until less than a week ago when he unveiled his "judeo-christianity promoting Federal Agency" plan

So, I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here

Kasich has always been pretty extreme, he just usually does a better job of hiding it.

What's worse is that there is a large portion of the American public that slowly nod their head when they hear someone say stuff like that.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Because high ranking federal officials in the FBI and DHS testify to Congress that we don't have enough data at our disposal to ascertain if any of the Syrians seeking refugee status are ISIS members or supporters. Giving credence to legitimate concerns regarding the identity of the Syrian refugees.

Why was there a need to testify before Congress in the first place? Does the GOP consider the process of being admitted to the US as a refugee generally problematic?

You may not like the outcome, another tempest in a teapot that attracts attention that would best be served forcused on policies and events that are more pressing and important, but the process was absolutely correct.

The federal govt decides to admit Syrian refugees. People question whether or not it's safe to do so. Congress, as representatives of the people, respond to that concern and question high ranking federal officials under oath in regards to the level of danger, if any, in admitting Syrian refugees. Multiple officials testify before Congress that there is no reliable database that would enable them to ascertain if any Syrian refugees were ISIS members/supporters. That's how govt is supposed to be held accountable.

If the administration had it's ducks in a row and controlled the message and federal officials had told Congress that any fears of sleeper cells masquerading as refugees were unfounded due to the screening process, the impractical nature of using refugee status as a cover for terrorists and the fact that the vast majority of refugees don't commit acts of terrorism then the wind would have been taken out of the sails of opponents of admitting the refugees. But that didn't happen. Congress asked the FBI and DHS if they could be sure that refugees weren't ISIS members and the answer Congress was given was no. That fueled the fears of the public and legitimized them.

You can always argue about the motivation for the questioning, but congress does have the authority and responsibility of oversight when it comes to federal agencies.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Are we going to talk about Donald Trump saying it was OK a protester got roughed up at his rally, or have we pretty much lost interest in Donald Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cause if so, awesome.

I think most rational people have lost interest in him, but he still seems to be the republican front runner.

I've never had interest...

I guess I'm one of the rational ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Are we going to talk about Donald Trump saying it was OK a protester got roughed up at his rally, or have we pretty much lost interest in Donald Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cause if so, awesome.

Hopefully. He's moved firmly into "making gak up" territory now.

You mean, when he *saw* on TV the thousands of palestinians having a block party in New Jersey celebrating 9/11?

That gak?

 whembly wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Are we going to talk about Donald Trump saying it was OK a protester got roughed up at his rally, or have we pretty much lost interest in Donald Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cause if so, awesome.

Hopefully. He's moved firmly into "making gak up" territory now.

You mean, when he *saw* on TV the thousands of palestinians having a block party in New Jersey celebrating 9/11?

That gak?

Wait, What?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 whembly wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Are we going to talk about Donald Trump saying it was OK a protester got roughed up at his rally, or have we pretty much lost interest in Donald Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cause if so, awesome.

Hopefully. He's moved firmly into "making gak up" territory now.

You mean, when he *saw* on TV the thousands of palestinians having a block party in New Jersey celebrating 9/11?

That gak?

Wait, What?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/donald-trump-new-jersey-cheering-september-11/

Yea... face palm worthy...

He's also "for" a muslim registry list. He doesn't know that he'd be violating 3-4 Constitutional amendments.

Wow. I thought that the Trump thing was a joke until I searched it online.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/

The gist of it is that people seemed to confuse footage of Palestinians celebrating on the West Bank...because the WB looks like NJ?

There was a verified instance of 6-12 teenagers doing what looked like a celebration for a very short period of time in Paterson NJ. The FBI apparently looked into a report of celebration but never found anything nor did reporters who followed the story or a researcher who worked in the neighborhood. Obviously 6-12 people is thousands.


There's obvious bias in the article but they do a credible job of following-up all of the potential leads on what in the potential blue-blazes Trump was talking about.

Prestor Jon wrote:

You may not like the outcome, another tempest in a teapot that attracts attention that would best be served forcused on policies and events that are more pressing and important, but the process was absolutely correct.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer either of my questions, so I'll pose a third: Why is that?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Congress, as representatives of the people, respond to that concern and question high ranking federal officials under oath in regards to the level of danger, if any, in admitting Syrian refugees. Multiple officials testify before Congress that there is no reliable database that would enable them to ascertain if any Syrian refugees were ISIS members/supporters. That's how govt is supposed to be held accountable.

By "the people" you mean the sort who rally around "feth Obama!" right? Because that was almost certainly the impetus for the relevant "inquiry".

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the administration had it's ducks in a row and controlled the message and federal officials had told Congress that any fears of sleeper cells masquerading as refugees were unfounded due to the screening process, the impractical nature of using refugee status as a cover for terrorists and the fact that the vast majority of refugees don't commit acts of terrorism then the wind would have been taken out of the sails of opponents of admitting the refugees. But that didn't happen. Congress asked the FBI and DHS if they could be sure that refugees weren't ISIS members and the answer Congress was given was no. That fueled the fears of the public and legitimized them.

Congress would have asked the same question regardless of the position taken by the Administration. A GOP House will take every opportunity it has to snipe at the Democrats.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the administration had it's ducks in a row and controlled the message and federal officials had told Congress that any fears of sleeper cells masquerading as refugees were unfounded due to the screening process, the impractical nature of using refugee status as a cover for terrorists and the fact that the vast majority of refugees don't commit acts of terrorism then the wind would have been taken out of the sails of opponents of admitting the refugees. But that didn't happen. Congress asked the FBI and DHS if they could be sure that refugees weren't ISIS members and the answer Congress was given was no. That fueled the fears of the public and legitimized them.

Congress would have asked the same question regardless of the position taken by the Administration. A GOP House will take every opportunity it has to snipe at the Democrats.

Did you even pay attention during GWB tenure?

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You may not like the outcome, another tempest in a teapot that attracts attention that would best be served forcused on policies and events that are more pressing and important, but the process was absolutely correct.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer either of my questions, so I'll pose a third: Why is that?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Congress, as representatives of the people, respond to that concern and question high ranking federal officials under oath in regards to the level of danger, if any, in admitting Syrian refugees. Multiple officials testify before Congress that there is no reliable database that would enable them to ascertain if any Syrian refugees were ISIS members/supporters. That's how govt is supposed to be held accountable.

By "the people" you mean the sort who rally around "feth Obama!" right? Because that was almost certainly the impetus for the relevant "inquiry".

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the administration had it's ducks in a row and controlled the message and federal officials had told Congress that any fears of sleeper cells masquerading as refugees were unfounded due to the screening process, the impractical nature of using refugee status as a cover for terrorists and the fact that the vast majority of refugees don't commit acts of terrorism then the wind would have been taken out of the sails of opponents of admitting the refugees. But that didn't happen. Congress asked the FBI and DHS if they could be sure that refugees weren't ISIS members and the answer Congress was given was no. That fueled the fears of the public and legitimized them.

Congress would have asked the same question regardless of the position taken by the Administration. A GOP House will take every opportunity it has to snipe at the Democrats.

I thought I did. I'll try to be more clear.

Congress asked federal officials in DHS and the FBI about the ability to determine if Syrian refugee applicants were ISIS members/supporters because, rightly or wrongly, the Paris attacks for which ISIS claimed responsibility, raised fears that ISIS members/supporters were trying to covertly enter the US disguised as Syrian refugees. Having Congress call in federal officials in charge of domestic security and immigration to address/assuage those fears is perfectly reasonable and is well within the remit of Congress. The fact that the testimony of those officials did not do much to allay such fears, however legitimate or illegitimate they are, is not the fault of Republicans. The Republicans in Congress couldn't know what the FBI and DHS officials would answer until they asked the questions and the Republicans did not do anything to influence those answers.

Apparently, Republican and Democrat members of Congress do believe there is cause for concern regarding the security of our immigration and refugee process for applicants from Syria and Iraq.

The push from Senate Democrats to divert attention from the refugee system came as top House Democrats were scrambling to limit defections on a House GOP bill that would enact more rigorous screening requirements for refugee applicants from Iraq and Syria. The House passed that bill, from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), on a 289- 137 vote on Thursday afternoon. The final tally included 47 Democratic yes votes, offering a rebuke for the White House which had lobbied against the measure, and giving Republicans a bipartisan victory.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/chuck-schumer-syria-refugee-no-pause-216063#ixzz3sRVj4CaB

I've noticed that Trump worshipers have begun to refer to him in almost messianic tones. Lots of, "I have been battling for Trump on the internet" or "TRUMP IS ALWAYS RIGHT!" And other such things that people are saying over and over again with the same words just different caps.

The thousands of celebrating Muslims thing is particularly interesting. Worshipers are now believing they saw it too or that they know somebody that saw it. Always seen on tv or internet never in the real world. When called out for evidence they usually site youtube as in go look for it on youtube or my favorite, which is linking a video of Palestinians in Palestine celebrating. The best part about that is when the journalists say in the video that it is in Palestine.

I'm upgrading Trump to full blown fascist with a cult of personality worshipping him.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I've noticed that Trump worshipers have begun to refer to him in almost messianic tones. Lots of, "I have been battling for Trump on the internet" or "TRUMP IS ALWAYS RIGHT!" And other such things that people are saying over and over again with the same words just different caps.

The thousands of celebrating Muslims thing is particularly interesting. Worshipers are now believing they saw it too or that they know somebody that saw it. Always seen on tv or internet never in the real world. When called out for evidence they usually site youtube as in go look for it on youtube or my favorite, which is linking a video of Palestinians in Palestine celebrating. The best part about that is when the journalists say in the video that it is in Palestine.

I'm upgrading Trump to full blown fascist with a cult of personality worshipping him.

The media would be better served by ignoring Trump rather than trying to take him down. The hit pieces on Trump only give Trump more media attention and encourage his supporters to embrace their perceived persecution complex. They don't need to devote the majority of their coverage to Trump, they only do it for ratings and page views, when the primary elections start being held next year, Trump isn't going to be winning any and he'll be irrelevant.

 whembly wrote:

Did you even pay attention during GWB tenure?

Yes? What are you implying?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Did you even pay attention during GWB tenure?

Yes? What are you implying?

I think he's implying that because the "other side" did it too, that somehow makes it right.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and "they started it" is an excuse that belongs on the school playground, not in D.C.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The Republicans in Congress couldn't know what the FBI and DHS officials would answer until they asked the questions and the Republicans did not do anything to influence those answers.

They knew that there was no political risk in any potential response. At worst the FBI and DHS officials say that everything is alright, and the GOP Congressmen still look tough on security.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Did you even pay attention during GWB tenure?

Yes? What are you implying?

I think he's implying that because the "other side" did it too, that somehow makes it right.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and "they started it" is an excuse that belongs on the school playground, not in D.C.

Not implying that it "makes it right".

Only that's the nature of the opposing party.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Did you even pay attention during GWB tenure?

Yes? What are you implying?

I think he's implying that because the "other side" did it too, that somehow makes it right.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and "they started it" is an excuse that belongs on the school playground, not in D.C.

Not implying that it "makes it right".

Only that's the nature of the opposing party.

Sure, not actually no. The actual truth is that during the GWB presidency, there wasn't an organized legislative agenda to block any single thing that "might give the other side a victory" - for example, No Child Left Behind, which was proposed by GWB, passed with 384 votes in congress and 91-8 in the Senate. Even the hotly-contested Medicare expansion - which barely passed! - garnered plenty of Democrat votes. Compare that with the ACA.

Before President Obama took office, there had been 68 nominees filibustered - this includes the judicial ones Republicans so bitterly complained about during the GWB administration. During the Obama's first term, there were 79 nominees blocked, more than in every president ever combined.

But yeah, "both sides are bad", If you pretend enough and disregard any facts that disprove that narrative. The worst part about typing all of that out was that I know, and you know, and everyone reading this knows, that you're just going to ignore all of it and keep repeating it anyway which is why this thread is logic cancer.

 whembly wrote:

Not implying that it "makes it right".

That is exactly what you're doing.

 whembly wrote:

Only that's the nature of the opposing party.

Whataboutism.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Did you even pay attention during GWB tenure?

Yes? What are you implying?

I think he's implying that because the "other side" did it too, that somehow makes it right.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and "they started it" is an excuse that belongs on the school playground, not in D.C.

Not implying that it "makes it right".

Only that's the nature of the opposing party.

Sure, not actually no. The actual truth is that during the GWB presidency, there wasn't an organized legislative agenda to block any single thing that "might give the other side a victory" - for example, No Child Left Behind, which was proposed by GWB, passed with 384 votes in congress and 91-8 in the Senate. Even the hotly-contested Medicare expansion - which barely passed! - garnered plenty of Democrat votes. Compare that with the ACA.

Before President Obama took office, there had been 68 nominees filibustered - this includes the judicial ones Republicans so bitterly complained about during the GWB administration. During the Obama's first term, there were 79 nominees blocked, more than in every president ever combined.

But yeah, "both sides are bad", If you pretend enough and disregard any facts that disprove that narrative. The worst part about typing all of that out was that I know, and you know, and everyone reading this knows, that you're just going to ignore all of it and keep repeating it anyway which is why this thread is logic cancer.

Sure... actually... no.

Don't put the boogey-man squarely on the Republican's lap when the likes of Nancy "You have to pass it to read it" Pelosi and Harry "feth you Republicans, I ain't allowing these bills on the floor" Reid had control of both houses in Obama's first term.

 whembly wrote:

Don't put the boogey-man squarely on the Republican's lap when the likes of Nancy "You have to pass it to read it" Pelosi...

That isn't what she said. She said "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy." Which is bad enough on its own, there is no need to put words in her mouth.

 whembly wrote:

...and Harry "feth you Republicans, I ain't allowing these bills on the floor" Reid had control of both houses in Obama's first term.

When Reid refused to allow bills to the Senate floor the Democrats did not control the House, Obama's second term.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't put the boogey-man squarely on the Republican's lap when the likes of Nancy "You have to pass it to read it" Pelosi...

That isn't what she said. She said "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy." Which is bad enough on its own, there is no need to put words in her mouth.

Except when put into context with what she said before Fox News grabbed onto that 10 second snippet, it actually makes sense:

Nancy Pelosi wrote: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.

Which she followed up with the now-famous line:

Nancy Pelosi wrote:But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it.

To anyone that knows how to put things into context, it's pretty clear that she was saying that all of the controversies (like 'death panels') were not real and if the Senate passes the bill it would be proven true. (Still waiting for those death panels...).

Now I know Whembly is going to accuse me of being 'Team Blue' or whatever, but as I've said time and time again, I'm anti-bull gak, no matter what form it takes. (For the record, I don't like Pelosi because of her anti-gun bull gak).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't put the boogey-man squarely on the Republican's lap when the likes of Nancy "You have to pass it to read it" Pelosi...

That isn't what she said. She said "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy." Which is bad enough on its own, there is no need to put words in her mouth.

Except when put into context with what she said before Fox News grabbed onto that 10 second snippet, it actually makes sense:

Nancy Pelosi wrote: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.

Which she followed up with the now-famous line:

Nancy Pelosi wrote:But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it.

To anyone that knows how to put things into context, it's pretty clear that she was saying that all of the controversies (like 'death panels') were not real and if the Senate passes the bill it would be proven true. (Still waiting for those death panels...).

Now I know Whembly is going to accuse me of being 'Team Blue' or whatever, but as I've said time and time again, I'm anti-bull gak, no matter what form it takes. (For the record, I don't like Pelosi because of her anti-gun bull gak).

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.

The context doesn't help at all... She is still saying, "The law is good, and the benefits will prove themselves worthy... TRUST US".

Whatever happen to careful deliberation and informing the public?

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.

Your BS meter needs calibration, because it appears to be stuck at:

 whembly wrote:


The context doesn't help at all... She is still saying, "The law is good, and the benefits will prove themselves worthy... TRUST US".

Isn't that what Politicians always say about every bill? I mean how do you know any bill is good until it is passed and the effects measured?

 whembly wrote:

The context doesn't help at all... She is still saying, "The law is good, and the benefits will prove themselves worthy... TRUST US".

Why is that controversial? The US is a representative democracy, it functions on the basis of trust.

 whembly wrote:

Whatever happen to careful deliberation and informing the public?

The public doesn't want to be informed, nor does it wish to deliberate carefully. What it wants are sensation and affirmation.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:


The context doesn't help at all... She is still saying, "The law is good, and the benefits will prove themselves worthy... TRUST US".

Isn't that what Politicians always say about every bill? I mean how do you know any bill is good until it is passed and the effects measured?

Not with the amount of deception that went into this...

There's a reason why politicians, especially the democrats, tried to avoid their townhalls.

We got Gruber'ed here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Whatever happen to careful deliberation and informing the public?

The public doesn't want to be informed, nor does it wish to deliberate carefully. What it wants are sensation and affirmation.

That's a bunch of hooey.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:


The context doesn't help at all... She is still saying, "The law is good, and the benefits will prove themselves worthy... TRUST US".

Isn't that what Politicians always say about every bill? I mean how do you know any bill is good until it is passed and the effects measured?

Not with the amount of deception that went into this...

There's a reason why politicians, especially the democrats, tried to avoid their townhalls.

We got Gruber'ed here.

Yeah. Of course politicians would want to avoid talking to the voterbase that would come to "townhalls".

The people who generally tend to care enough to go to those things? They're people who generally have their minds made up and are interested in "gotcha!' moments that will get them even a brief few minutes of air time on a news network, not actually having a reasonable discussion.

You might as well call "townhalls" to be "thunderdomes".

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Whatever happen to careful deliberation and informing the public?

The public doesn't want to be informed, nor does it wish to deliberate carefully. What it wants are sensation and affirmation.

That's a bunch of hooey.

It's really not.

Why do you think Fox News and the major news networks use the model of reporting that they do?

 whembly wrote:

That's a bunch of hooey.

You say that, but a couple posts up you misquoted Nancy Pelosi. People that want to be informed generally like to be accurate when attributing statements to others.

Anyway, responding to sensation and affirmation is easy, but being informed and carefully deliberating on the basis of that information is difficult. This is part of why the majority of people (the public) avoid the latter two. The other part centers on the fact that some people got there first, and are better at the game as a result. This can make the process of becoming informed, such that one might deliberate carefully, intimidating; rendering the easy option all the more attractive. This is not to say the people who got there first bear no responsibility, they most assuredly do, but from my experience as a TA I can confidently state that the old adage about horses and water holds true.

They are not reporting. This is no reporting any more if there ever was. They are selling a product for a profit. In this instance that is minimovies: stories with as much blood, sex, and righteous outrage as possible. If there were Baysplosions on top, that would be the best.