| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
I had the debate on the tube, but was trying to get some chores done too. Hate to say it, but I missed much. Trump outclassed the others? I guess you and I will just have to disagree on the definition of class. Trump is good at many things. Being a political leader is not among them. Too much like BO, with a different agenda. I can only imagine what would be said about his policies that would benefit his own businesses. I might even agree with many of those policies, but it would be a hell storm of accusations that he is doing things for his own benefit. I would be afraid that those criticisms might be spot on too. While I found Trumps defense of what he has said about women entertaining, claiming to have only said those things about Rosie O'Ddonell, that was a flat out lie with no resemblance to reality. That seems to be a theme of his campaign. Did I mention that he is too much like another well known politician? Christi belongs on that stage in name only. RINO. That's not a joke about his weight. It does suck that they broke it out in two tiers. The reality though, is that even with 10 candidates, you don't get much in the way of depth. With 17 it would be almost useless. The best you could do would be to have an hour and a half and let each one have 5 minutes to give their speech. I would be really curious who is calling for preventing Muslims from being able to preach. Investigating certain mosques might make sense when they have multiple terrorists associated with them as seems to happen repeatedly. That's not a restriction of religious freedoms, it's investigating groups of people with direct terrorist ties. I didn't get the first debate recorded. I did record the second one. I'll find time to watch it sometime later. I'm bummed that I missed my chance to hear more from Carly Fiorina. I hope she gets some media time in the future. | ||
| Cyclonedon |
I think one word sums up last night's debate "JOKE" | ||
| Reindog |
I am busy right now so I'll respond later. In general, I am extremely impressed by the Republican field. This is the best field to go against the corrupt, immoral, and criminal Clinton. This was the most watched "debate" in history with 24 million people. FoxNews is the big winner and Hillary is the loser. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"Trump outclassed the others? " You dont read well, do you? Go back, read it again. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
Sifo - Im sorry that I cant say who it was that mentioned preventing people from preaching Islam, it was during the 5pm debate, a man, thats all I can say. Honestly, with 17 of them, Im not super familiar with them all/being able to quickly look at them and know their name. Youre right, with 17 on one stage they'd have gotten so little time...but thats what happened with TEN on stage. Some were given VERY few questions and had to rely on interjecting to get air time. Shame. | ||
| Torquehd |
I caught most of the first debate but only a small portion of the second. A lot of good things were said. That debate was like waking up from a dream of insanity. Realizing these past 7 years were only a nightmare. Only to fall asleep again and realize I'm still trapped here. I know they're politicians, but they said a lot of good things, and I want to believe them. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
Sifo, I did a little research and found ONE clip that mentioned what I was talking about (religion) I think, on listening to it more now, I misunderstood what was said. It was George Pataki, here is a clip to one part of his religion talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Fpc58Oycg As it was happening I misheard, and for that I apologize. But, if I am not mistaken, he went on later about this sort of thing while still talking about religious freedom for Christians. I am a Christian, and I do think that my people should not be FORCED to do something that goes against their religion. But what I believe in is that ALL Americans have equality and be able to practice freely. But to the clip - How do we know who is an islamic extremist and who is not? Because he stated " I would do everything in our power not just to go after those who are here who we know who are here," but how will you know about those who you dont know are here? It seems he's really lumping a lot of people together on this and I dont agree with it. Anyway, apologies for my misunderstanding and spreading false information | ||
| Sifo |
"Trump outclassed the others? " You dont read well, do you? Go back, read it again. Apparently I don't read too good sometimes. Sorry about that. Maybe we did both see the same debate. Thanks for looking for the clip on the religion thing. I don't know much about Pataki. While the clip you provided didn't show anything that I find too objectionable, I won't claim that he didn't make other statements that went off the deep end. Thanks to you at this point I can watch for any signs of that when I hear him speak in the future. I sincerely appreciate that. It is a difficult subject. We are under attack right now, from a group that sees a religious component in their attacks. To ignore that, is to ignore reality. Our current administration seems to want to ignore that reality. Yet that same administration has gone after other groups with a religious component with vigor. I doubt many would remember the Hutaree militia group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree BO had no problems with getting an undercover agent into that group, and using that undercover agent to incite them to go over the line. Everyone associated with the group was arrested, including a couple of folks who had only checked them out a single time, yet found themselves under conspiracy charges. The charges against everyone fell apart, but lives were destroyed by the weight of our federal law enforcement system. In contrast, we have the mosque that produced the two Boston bombers. I understand their uncle also had ties with that mosque and terrorism. I seem to recall that there were also other terrorists associated with that mosque. This mosque isn't alone in being a hot spot for producing terrorists. I wouldn't be in favor of investigating all mosques, but currently, we seem to be ignoring where the evidence leads us. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
This is where we disagree, I do find it objectionable to monitor innocent people. Just because someone is muslim does not mean they are, or will become, a terrorist. Are there some radical islamists? Absolutely, but that doesnt mean we should monitor all of them. | ||
| Sifo |
I said nothing about monitoring all of them. I'm simply pointing out that we are failing to monitor the small minorities of them that seem to be producing high numbers of terrorists. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
But how do we figure out where these unknown terrorists are? THAT is the problem that I have Really its no different from the Patriot Act - spy on everyone to find who is the bad guy. I like the end results, just not how they get there! | ||
| Sifo |
Well it makes sense to me that after you have a few terrorists with a common association, like attending the same mosque, at that point you might want to turn your attention to what's going on inside that mosque. Law enforcement does that sort of thing routinely, but we are being far to afraid of pissing off the "innocents". Well perhaps if the "innocents" were to come forward before people are killed, and stop claiming that the terrorist was a good kid that would never have done such a thing after, we would be less likely to piss them off. That's far from spying on everyone. Spying on everyone is our solution to not spying on the people who are associating with the terrorists. It's pretty straight forward. So as long as I'm willing to entertain your questions on this thread, how about returning the favor? | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
Even the mosques that have a few terrorists coming out of it - there are probably 10-1 non-terrorists in that mosque, and those people have rights, just like you and I. Thats my issue with all of this. There are people who are being treated poorly based on their religious. | ||
| Jon |
Carly Fiorina. Believe it. No more politicians, please. If not her, then, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz. Feel free to copy my post to your Facebook account. | ||
| Tod662 |
REPORT: Right-wing terrorists twice as likely to kill Americans than Muslim jihadists are june/24/15 Nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by right-wing extremists since 9/11 as have died at the hands of radical Muslims on US soil, a new report found. There have also been nearly three times as many deadly right-wing attacks as jihadist ones. In almost a decade-and-a-half, 48 Americans have died in the US in 19 attacks by white supremacists, so-called “sovereign citizens” and other non-Muslim extremists, while 26 have died in seven jihadist attacks on US soil during that same time period, research center New America found as it compiled a new database on deadly attacks in the US since 9/11. "Since 9/11, our country has been fixated on the threat of jihadi terrorism," said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, according to the Kansas City Star. "But the horrific tragedy at the Emanuel AME reminds us that the threat of homegrown domestic terrorism is very real." Last Wednesday, nine African-Americans were shot and killed at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Dylann Storm Roof, who later confessed to the massacre, made racist statements as he killed his victims, survivors told police. A website believed to belong to Roof contained a white supremacist manifesto, as well asphotos of him posing with a gun, carrying the Confederate flag and burning an American flag. The Charleston shooting has not been officially labeled as terrorism, however, and Roof has not been charged with any crimes more heinous than murder. The New America database shows that attacks like Roof’s are a much more common occurrence than those like the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, in which Muslim brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed four people and injured over 260 more in a religiously motivated attack. The dataset ‒ compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert ‒ relied mainly upon court documents, wire service reports and news reports as sources. A small number of individuals who either died or were killed without being charged, and are widely and credibly reported as having engaged in violent extremist activity, were included in the list of charged extremists. “The purpose of this database is to provide as much information as possible about American citizens and permanent residents engaged in violent extremist activity as well as individuals, regardless of their citizenship status, living within the United States who have engaged in violent extremist activity,” Sterman and Bergen wrote. "We examine both those individuals motivated by Jihadist ideology, understood as those who worked with or were inspired by al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, as well as those motivated by other ideologies that are non-Jihadist in character, for example right wing, left wing, or idiosyncratic beliefs.” There were killings that gripped the national conscience ut were not included. A North Carolina man who confessed to killing his three Muslim neighbors and had posted angry critiques about religion online, for instance, was omitted because the shooting may have been related to a parking dispute. Likewise, New America did not include massacres that did not appear to have ideological motives, such as the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The report may even be understating the number of right-wing terrorist attacks in the US because the media often reports other, non-political motivations when the perpetrators are white, critics contend. “With non-Muslims, the media bends over backward to identify some psychological traits that may have pushed them over the edge,” Abdul Cader Asmal, a longtime spokesman for Boston’s Muslim community, told the New York Times. “Whereas if it’s a Muslim, the assumption is that they must have done it because of their religion.” New America noted that it focused on the acts themselves and remained neutral on whether the perpetrators’ motivations were considered to be violently extreme. “We recognize that extremism is a subjective term and that the First Amendment protects the right to hold extreme political views,” Sterman and Bergen wrote. “Our dataset takes no stance on whether particular ideologies are extreme but focuses on violent extremism understood as the use of violence in pursuit of any political ideology whether that ideology is considered mainstream in the United States or not.” Facts vs. public perceptions The New America database runs counter to public perception, which says that Muslim jihadists on US soil are a much larger threat to Americans. The people tasked with rooting out violent extremists and preventing attacks from occurring, however, see threats in line with what the dataset found, according to a survey about to be published. That study ‒ set to be published this week by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security and the Police Executive Research Forum ‒ asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed anti-government violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to study authors Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University. “Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists,” Kurzman told the NY Times. The mismatch between public perceptions and actual cases of jihadism in the US has become steadily more obvious in scholarly research, but that realization hasn’t made its way into the mainstream American conscience yet, John G. Horgan, who studies terrorism at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told the NY Times. “There’s an acceptance now of the idea that the threat from jihadi terrorism in the United States has been overblown,” Horgan said. “And there’s a belief that the threat of right-wing, antigovernment violence has been underestimated.” The government ‒ or at least Republicans on the House Committee on Homeland Security ‒ may be playing into the public misconception that jihadi terrorism is the biggest threat Americans face. On Friday, the committee introduced its new, monthly Terror Threat Snapshot that will track “the escalating and grave threat environment facing the United States.” “Terror threats to the US homeland have reached unprecedented levels,”committee chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said in a statement.“There have been 116 homegrown jihadist plots in America since 9/11— more than half of those have occurred in just the past three years.” According to that tool, the number of homegrown terror plots since 9/11 has tripled in the past five years. The data was compiled by the committee’s majority staff. | ||
| Torquehd |
“With non-Muslims, the media bends over backward to identify some psychological traits that may have pushed them over the edge,” Abdul Cader Asmal, a longtime spokesman for Boston’s Muslim community, told the New York Times. “Whereas if it’s a Muslim, the assumption is that they must have done it because of their religion.” There's a reason for that. the folks who are bat-shit-crazy and go shoot up a school or movie theater typically have a laundry list of "indicators", behavior traits that are out of the spectrum of what is normal for society. Muslims, however, who shoot up a room full of coworkers yelling things like "aloha snackbar", have their own set of indicators. But instead of being social traits like extreme introversion, death fixation, self-inflicted seperation from society, their indicators are things like visiting jihadist websites, spending time with other pro-radical-islamists. I think it's funny that people get all bent out of shape about government monitoring. If your worst fear is that someone behind a badge is going to find out that you smoke weed or don't like the president.... you're not even worth their time of day. People tend to think of themselves as way more badass than they really are. Comes from watching too much HBO i guess. If there have been 2 innocent lives saved as a result of government monitoring, i'm ok with it. and even if you're not ok with it... it will never stop. so long as there is technology, there will be non-consensual monitoring. don't like it? don't be a terrorist. | ||
| Sifo |
19 attacks by white supremacists, so-called “sovereign citizens” and other non-Muslim extremists  If that isn't a category designed to fit an agenda, I have no idea what is. 48 killed in a decade and a half across the entire country? Here is the Republic of Chicago we call that the weekend! Yep, those darned right wing extremists! | ||
| Tod662 |
And how many by Jihadist?? Wow use your own logic, half as many deaths by Muslim extremists, yet you, most that read this, and Faux News completely have your undies in a bundle, and am scared sheetless by anybody who is different. Huh, is there an agenda being pushed by the scare tactic that the arabs are coming to get you? | ||
| Sifo |
Well Richard Reid, the Christmas shoe bomber alone, had he been able to light the fuse would have changed that dramatically. Or the underwear bomber. Or any number of other failed or foiled terrorist attempts that we have been made aware of. vs. Making up a category that consists of "white supremacists, so-called “sovereign citizens” and other non-Muslim extremists". First off, that's not even a single category. It's also undefined as a conglomerate. Secondly, "white supremacist" sounds suspiciously like Ruth Ginsburg and Planned Parent hood who want to control the growth of races that they find undesirable in their society. I'm guessing the white supremacist in question was the one who sparked the most recent uproar about the confederate flag. I never saw anything that clearly tied him to any political party. The flag though was the flag of the southern slave owners who opposed the abolition of slavery, AKA Democrats. | ||
| Tod662 |
yet you can paint all people of the second largest religion in the world with the same brush?? Yeah Yeah democrats and slavery is an point that is over 100 years out of context but when you are spoon fed your beliefs its easy to be persuaded. "I never saw anything that clearly tied him to any political party" - EXACTLY -when its a white extremist none of their affiliations are made part of the story. | ||
| Sifo |
No Tod, it's the Muslim extremists that I have issue with. It's a combination of words that BO can't seem to roll off his tongue. Tod, we've been having the Ginsburg discussion in parallel with this one. They run parallel in the aspect of the Democrat's suppression of a certain portion of the population that they don't want to many of. Since the abolition of slavery, Democrats have been behind Jim Crow laws, gun control aimed at blacks so the can't defend themselves when being lynched by the KKK which was run by Democrats, and in opposition to more than a hand full of modern anti-discrimination laws. Blacks have been kept segregated in our large cities that are virtually all run by Democrats. Democrats are behind all kinds of laws that pretty much teach blacks that they are not capable of taking care of themselves, essentially paying them to remain poor. It was LBJ who is known for saying that he would have them voting Democratic for the next 200 years referring to paltry handouts being offered to them. Tell me again how it just something that's 100 years out of context? Still to day, blacks who try to be successful on their own initiative are beaten down by their own as selling out to the whites. Now it is painting them with a broad brush to claim that they are all Democrats, but they are roughly 90% democrats, and I would be willing to bet that among those who are achieving personal success, there's a much higher percentage of Republicans among them. Actually, we have seen many times where someone on a shooting spree is immediately associated with the political right, only to have it come out later that they were registered Democrats, or having other left wing ties. It's the knee jerk reaction of the MSM. I was actually surprised to not see it happen in the case involving the stars and bars. Kind of makes me wonder if they already know the truth. That last part is just conjecture on my part though. | ||
| Ducbsa |
That Roof guy posed with a burning US flag; why don't all the progs that condone such behavior embrace him as one of their own? Regarding 100 years ago, Bull Connor was a DNC national committeeman and did the likes of Bobby Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey condemn him or kick him out? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.pjtv.com/series/scott-ott-thought-835/h ow-npr-covers-the-gop-presidential-primary-race-11 193/ Sometimes sarcasm is soo, soo true.... | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
 good one | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422395/carly -fiorina-climate-change-left | ||
| Pwnzor |
So I heard on the radio that Trump reversed his position on funding Planned Infanticide now... | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Aesquire, what do you think about thorium based nuclear power? | ||
| Aesquire |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
I'd prefer Fusion, which has been only 20 years away since long before I was born. I do have a tiny bit of hope for the LockMart team, but if I was betting I'd put it on the Bussard designs. Of course, once we have Fusion, there will be protesters about us burning all the seawater and how the oceans will fall, and we all will die of thirst. No more fish in the dried up seas and for the love of Rachel Carson Think Of The Children!!! In reality, the sea level fall will be a real issue as we pass 20 billion people population since our waste heat will evaporate the seas much faster than we burn the hydrogen. ( 20 billion x 100 watts each = how much waste heat? and that's without heated homes or transportation or food production ) to put that much power in perspective, that's the same as the Io flux tube. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/jovian_moo ns/io.html It would, of course, be better if we didn't have to dig holes in the ground to extract any minerals we need, including Thorium and the rare Earth elements we need for high efficiency electric motors. Until we start mining the asteroids, and put dirty industrial processes in space where the solar wind can blow the bad stuff away from our planet, ( no doubt earning us a ticket from the Galactic EPA ) we just have to practice good judgment on how we clean up our messes. I'm also good with orbital solar, and eventually a partial Dyson Sphere to supply our energy needs. We are going to need orbital solar arrays and mirrors to adjust our climate in the future anyway. We need much better models than the Cultists currently have before that. I remember proposals to cover the arctic ice with soot to hold off the ice age predicted in 1977. Probably a good idea we didn't go whole hog for that, eh? Now they are pumping CO2 into mines, and I'm betting that's going to turn out to do more damage than using nukes to put out oil well leaks. ( tried by the Soviets, and proposed for the BP Gulf oil leak... ) Then again, I could be wrong, it's not like the Science Is Settled. | ||
| Hootowl |
Opinion. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/carly-fiori na-hillary-clinton/index.html I like her. |
