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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
>Better keep letting Muslims in until they become a problem because Nazis are bad.

Suggest we should let MALES go free when they represent the huge majority of shooting spree, terrorist attacks and generally violent crime…

Also, the idea that idea that Muslims will inherently become a problem, JFC.

I'll try to dumbbit down for Frazzled:

Group A = Islamic Extremists
Group B = White Supremacist Groups

Group B is much more likely to affect any of us than Group A.

Sure, Group C is also around and is big and scary and there are more of them than Group B. The mitochondria is also the powerhouse of the cell. Neither one of those facts has anything to do with the fact that Group B is bigger, more active, and more of a threat that Group A.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


And the reason you see more white supremacists in the Federal and State prison systems, is that actual Islamic fundies that join terrorist groups usually end up in special facilities (like the infamous Gitmo) depending on how much of the security threat they pose. Most of them don't end up on the mainline in the Federal pen. And they sure as hell don't go to a State big house. Islamic terrorists (or potential terrorists) are far more dangerous than your average hardcore bigot in the Klan or W.A.R.

Islamic Extremists in the US end up in the Federal system and not in Gitmo, since they are tried and sentenced through the Federal system. The reason I see more white supremacists than Islamic extremists is because there are more white supremacists than there are Islamic extremists. Both groups move through the system the same way, there is nothing special about either of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In actual political news:

- The Chairman of the House Committee tasked to investigate any Russian connection between Trump has been sneaking to secret meetings at the White House to meet with an informant, then taking that information to the press and Trump, but not the Democrats on the Committee. Paul Ryan is of course okay with all of that.
- Trump wants $1,000,000,000 to build 62 miles of wall. I guess it's a small loan until Mexico pays it back?

Well when the government starts leading an international coalition to bomb and retake territory from Group B, I will be concerned. Until then its just a lefty buggaboo.

Back to the topic of Bannon. Appears his meeting with conservatives shortly before the Healthcare nonvote went...poorly.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/03/27/before-the-death-of-the-gop-health-care-bill-bannon-met-with-the-house-freedom-caucus-it-was-a-total-disaster-n2304769
I wonder if Bannon's days are numbered there.

 d-usa wrote:
I'll try to dumbbit down for Frazzled:

Group A = Islamic Extremists
Group B = White Supremacist Groups

Group B is much more likely to affect any of us than Group A.

Not even close to true. Any of us paying taxes are much more affected by A, as we are paying a gak ton to fight them. Not so much Group B. And though it is kind of unique to military and folks near military bases, Group A affects those communities massively as you deal with deployments, loved ones getting blown up or suffering in other ways. Lots of good guys and gals with prosthetics from injuries from Islamists, not so many due to group B.

I know my family and the families of some close buddies have been impacted quite a bit more by Group A than group B. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of anyone I know who would claim to have been impacted by Group B, but know several impacted by Group A.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'll try to dumbbit down for Frazzled:

Group A = Islamic Extremists
Group B = White Supremacist Groups

Group B is much more likely to affect any of us than Group A.

Not even close to true. Any of us paying taxes are much more affected by A, as we are paying a gak ton to fight them. Not so much Group B. And though it is kind of unique to military and folks near military bases, Group A affects those communities massively as you deal with deployments, loved ones getting blown up or suffering in other ways. Lots of good guys and gals with prosthetics from injuries from Islamists, not so many due to group B.

I know my family and the families of some close buddies have been impacted quite a bit more by Group A than group B. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of anyone I know who would claim to have been impacted by Group B, but know several impacted by Group A.

If (and its a hard if) we didn't send people over seas to tell MENA countries how to exist with guns, this entire category wouldn't really exist (might not even at all actually). We would then just have to worry about right and left wing extremists, of which currently (for the moment) right wing is the more dangerous.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'll try to dumbbit down for Frazzled:

Group A = Islamic Extremists
Group B = White Supremacist Groups

Group B is much more likely to affect any of us than Group A.

Not even close to true. Any of us paying taxes are much more affected by A, as we are paying a gak ton to fight them. Not so much Group B. And though it is kind of unique to military and folks near military bases, Group A affects those communities massively as you deal with deployments, loved ones getting blown up or suffering in other ways. Lots of good guys and gals with prosthetics from injuries from Islamists, not so many due to group B.

I know my family and the families of some close buddies have been impacted quite a bit more by Group A than group B. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of anyone I know who would claim to have been impacted by Group B, but know several impacted by Group A.

If (and its a hard if) we didn't send people over seas to tell MENA countries how to exist with guns, this entire category wouldn't really exist (might not even at all actually). We would then just have to worry about right and left wing extremists, of which currently (for the moment) right wing is the more dangerous.

Were you born in 2002? Unless you were then you have no excuse for the utter ignorance of history you just displayed.

Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

The outcome was never in doubt.

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

I hope the process begins to pick up speed so that eventually, Sessions and Co. can do nothing about it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

I hope the process begins to pick up speed so that eventually, Sessions and Co. can do nothing about it.

Illinois will probably pass legal recreational weed this year, as they're touting over a $billion of increased tax revenue... They'll need something like that to plug the budget holes or start cutting things left&right.

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

I hope the process begins to pick up speed so that eventually, Sessions and Co. can do nothing about it.

Illinois will probably pass legal recreational weed this year, as they're touting over a $billion of increased tax revenue... They'll need something like that to plug the budget holes or start cutting things left&right.

I don't have much faith in them passing it. It sounds good on paper and looks good on paper, so the idiots in charge will probably do the direct opposite.

Also, you can't have budget holes when you do not have a budget.

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

WHen we measure the impact of violent crimes by how they might affect our taxes, then it's best to walk away rather than try to debate with any sort of serious reply. I've learned that it's better to let people believe what they want rather than get myself worked up on the internet.

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

The sooner Sessions and his antiquated mindset and authoritarian policies are gone from the DoJ the better off we'll be as a country.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

The sooner Sessions and his antiquated mindset and authoritarian policies are gone from the DoJ the better off we'll be as a country.

Agree.

In other politics news a state university hires an "undocumented student coordinator." to "“advocate for, advise, represent, and protect undocumented and DACAmented students,"

Whoever hired him should be immediately terminated. That has interesting RICO considerations now that they broadcast it over the wires.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/03/28/public-university-hires-coordinator-to-protect-illegal-immigrant-students-n2305312

 Frazzled wrote:
In other politics news a state university hires an "undocumented student coordinator." to "“advocate for, advise, represent, and protect undocumented and DACAmented students,"

Whoever hired him should be immediately terminated. That has interesting RICO considerations now that they broadcast it over the wires.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/03/28/public-university-hires-coordinator-to-protect-illegal-immigrant-students-n2305312

So when do we start terminating the people who help student athletes get away with sexual assault?

Also, I think you might need to brush up on what DACA actually is.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy started by the Obama administration in June 2012 that allows certain illegal aliens to the United States who entered the country as minors to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work permit.

To be eligible, undocumented immigrants must have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and before June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under age 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship, nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.

It's not illegal for undocumented students to go to university.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not illegal for undocumented students to go to university.

I'll grant that if this "student coordinator" is intended to help them get aid that they cannot legally get--that's one thing.

If it's literally just a case of being like any other "student coordinator" job I've seen, where the goal is to have someone on staff who tries to keep channels of communication open between the university and students--it's a whole different kettle of fish.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not illegal for undocumented students to go to university.

It is illegal for them to be in the US in the first place. This aids and abets criminal activity at the expense of the taxpayer.

As to the comment about wacking people hiding student athletes covering for crimes. They should not be fired. They should be imprisoned.

Dreamers gave certain rights and responsibilities, and I see no problem with having someone on the University payroll to make sure they are aware of them.

This is a non-issue.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not illegal for undocumented students to go to university.

It is illegal for them to be in the US in the first place. This aids and abets criminal activity at the expense of the taxpayer.

It's also illegal for US officials to be deleting any public comments or advancing their financial interests while in office, but I don't hear you calling for Trump to get arrested.

 d-usa wrote:
Dreamers gave certain rights and responsibilities, and I see no problem with having someone on the University payroll to make sure they are aware of them.

This is a non-issue.

I'm sorry, under what law? They are criminals taking money from taxpayers and positions from actual citizens.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-donald-trump-working-white-house-golf-trip-location-mar-a-lago-us-president-a7652486.html

A. The fact the the president isn't taking the weekend off to go golfing was worthy of a news alert is really depressing.

B. The fact that they were wrong is even more depressing.

I mean, arguably, the less time of him being in control the better, but he could at least try.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not illegal for undocumented students to go to university.

It is illegal for them to be in the US in the first place. This aids and abets criminal activity at the expense of the taxpayer.

It's also illegal for US officials to be deleting any public comments or advancing their financial interests while in office, but I don't hear you calling for Trump to get arrested.

You were right accept for Trump of course. Its Constitutional, even though I disagree with it. As noted, I voted for the pothead.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-donald-trump-working-white-house-golf-trip-location-mar-a-lago-us-president-a7652486.html

A. The fact the the president isn't taking the weekend off to go golfing was worthy of a news alert is really depressing.

B. The fact that they were wrong is even more depressing.

I mean, arguably, the less time of him being in control the better, but he could at least try.

It's not that they were "wrong". It's that they lied to cover for him. Reports from the various "Rogue" insider twitter accounts were that Trump contacted Fox and told them to say he was at the WH working.

When he got spotted at his VA golf course, he contacted them to have them publish that he was "holding meetings" there.

BTW:
Did you see the hilarious selfie someone took at the club? Trump apparently vouched for the guy to the Secret Service, telling them "We can trust him, he's a Republican"...as the guy tweeted out a selfie showing Trump walking to go catch his tee time.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Dreamers gave certain rights and responsibilities, and I see no problem with having someone on the University payroll to make sure they are aware of them.

This is a non-issue.

I'm sorry, under what law? They are criminals taking money from taxpayers and positions from actual citizens.

The legal justification for their presence is in your own post, try reading the stuff you post. I know I ask a lot, but if we have to read the garbage you continue to post then you should at least give us the courtesy of reading it yourself.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Dreamers gave certain rights and responsibilities, and I see no problem with having someone on the University payroll to make sure they are aware of them.

This is a non-issue.

I'm sorry, under what law? They are criminals taking money from taxpayers and positions from actual citizens.

The legal justification for their presence is in your own post, try reading the stuff you post. I know I ask a lot, but if we have to read the garbage you continue to post then you should at least give us the courtesy of reading it yourself.

Sorry thats not accurate, DACA was an Obama policy, never a law.
Fire the ones who hired the coordinator and repremand the ones that hired the guys who were fired.
This is likely one of the few positions I'm 100% behind Trump on. Hammer the out of the sanctuary cities,Austin included.

Frazz, what do you have against people going to school?

 feeder wrote:
Frazz, what do you have against people going to school?

Not a damn thing. I am fully supportive of them going to school where they are citizens, or alternatively in Canada where you can pay for them and compete for university spots instead of me. I prefer to save university positions and taxpayer funds for US citizens and legal immigrants or visa holders.