| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
 | ||
| Reepicheep |
She did exactly what she was appointed by Obama to do... pursue Obama's policies on immigration, and Obama's policies of political weaponization of the department of justice though broad interpretation and selective enforcement. Most of his immigration policy was based on this approach. Clinton did the same. Bush probably did also around 9/11. And I am confident Trump will do the same but with a different agenda. There is a reason the executive branch gets to appoint these leaders. Elections have consequences. She announced she wouldn't pursue Trump's policies, and she was fired and replaced by a Trump appointee. She didn't resist the firing, she didn't hide her actions, she didn't form a conspiracy to try and keep herself in her position. And it's important. What would you say if the new Attorney General chooses not to prosecute a CCW holder that was charged with federal firearms violations for not properly securing their weapon while driving through a corner of NJ, because they believe the law violates the 2nd ammendment, and that they couldn't successfully prosecute it? When you call this a coup, you sound as nutty as the left calling Trump a racist and homophobe. You loose credibility for hyperbole to a broad middle of the political spectrum. Here is a real example... http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protec tions-trump-continues-obama-policy-federal-workers /index.html Even CNN couldn't help themselves from making Trump's critics look like idiots...
When you friends (CNN) make you (Griffin) look that stupid, you know you are in trouble. | ||
| Fb1 |
When you call this a coup, you sound as nutty... Is this directed at ME? | ||
| Reepicheep |
It's my opinion, which anyone is free to ignore. I'm tired of drama and hyperbole. (Also just my opinion) | ||
| Aesquire |
Since hearing this morning claims Donald's pick for Supreme court is going to throw America back to 1789, I'm guessing he's a great choice. I'm more guilty than most here for my contempt for the previous President. I think I have reason to have that attitude, the wars he started, the war he denies, his actions in diplomacy and the economy, stupid. But I've certainly been less than respectful for the Taqiyya Prez. I've been downright mean about his communist roots and his institutional dishonesty. Partly because I was raised in an American lower middle class Midwestern family and lying to get my way was discouraged. Barry was denied those blessings. Thus I will try to not be offended when others are less than respectful to the game show host.... I mean president. As long as it's honest reasons. Willing to bet Donald will do something I disapprove of. It's inevitable. I'm a social liberal. ( so is Donald ) But until what's on tv is other than Alinskyite propaganda and painfully obvious lies, anyone panic gushing bile about lies is going to get mocked. | ||
| Sifo |
She did exactly what she was appointed by Obama to do... pursue Obama's policies on immigration Actually, her position is supposed to, within the law, execute our countries laws and policies of the POTUS, as those policies are affected by federal law. If you are unwilling to perform the duties of your job, you should simply step down. Make your resignation a form of protest if you must, but to remain in the job and refuse to execute that job to the best of your ability is simply unprofessional. While "coup" is an extremely strong term for what was done, it was an attempted assertion of power over the elected President of our country. It's certainly dancing with the definition of a coup. Granted, it was going to fail fast and hard. I wouldn't get too tied up in the semantics though. I would be most impressed if Yates could express how the legality of what Trump did was different from what was done by BO. That should be a fun exercise of twisting your synapses into knots! | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Reepicheep |
And just to be clear, objections to her decision and actions, and recognition of the value of her prompt firing were spot on. I am just tired of reading opinions from both sides that seem structured to make want to be angry and hate a person. FB, yours weren't that bad in this regard, and you are a friend. Every position is biased. And a biased critic will nearly always be the first to find the real problems with whatever I believe and do. Don't ignore or dismiss the bias, but don't ignore or dismiss the concerns behind it also. 90% will be whining, lies, and vitriol. 10% won't be. The result of just dismissing anything biased is that we never actually solve any problems. Consider the BLM movement. It has degraded into two stupid positions: 1) Blacks are getting killed for being black, and cops are criminals 2) There is no problem. My opinion of the real problem would be something more like the following... 1) 50% of the fatalities are conscious decisions by criminals to be criminals, and they are not the least bit surprised by their own death (at the hands of cops or other criminals, doesn't matter). They weren't going to stop any other way. 2) 45% of the fatalities are petty criminals doing things for which a death sentence is unreasonable, and they died because they were just really stupid (making choices that put themselves in a bad situation where they weren't actually intending to be a threat, but they made it impossible for others to know that, and ended up reasonably dead as a result). 3) 5% innocent but inevitable victims. They really didn't do anything wrong or make any bad decisions, but circumstances conspired to put them in a situation where they ended up dead as an "honest mistake". 4) 1% dead because a cop lost it. Cops are human too, and there will be bad apples and people who break over time. Everything has a percentage of criminals, even police work. I made guesses at the percentages, whatever. But if we can get past the first case of just two extremes by both sides (that we can never fix), and get to the second understanding with the 4 (or more) cases, I think we could (working together) easily reduce the number of blacks that didn't deserve to die by 20% to 30%. But the people on each side that just want to vilify each other (both sides) are sucking up all the oxygen in the room. (Sorry for the rant. I guess I'm turning into a cranky old man...) Get over the bias. I did a lot of work on the R&D systems that keep airplanes from falling on your head. Even down to the level of physics, EVERYTHING is biased. You manage it and tune around it. The things that make some sensors great is also what makes them so susceptible to bias. Bias doesn't make things useless, it just has to be managed. And hate and personal attacks will always be a short term gain that comes at a longer term loss. The left is paying that price now. What the right does now will determine if they pay later. (Message edited by reepicheep on February 01, 2017) | ||
| Hootowl |
Doug, In America, 'Social Justice' is the banner the Left waves when they demand more of my money be given to people who didn't earn it, and do not deserve it. It's also, much like your definition, used to berate law enforcement and the courts for putting criminals in prison. None of that is 'justice' to me. When I see protesters demanding 'Social Justice', I see a bunch of mis-educated (our universities are indoctrination centers) idiots clamoring for the destruction of the very society that gives them the ability, in both protection from persecution and economic terms, to have nothing better to do than to dress up as a vagina and scream at people. | ||
| Njloco |
Hyperbole, I guess that is the new word of the day. I think, though the word coup in this instance might be a bit strong for many other countries, I don't think so in this case. This was an attempt by a person in a appointed position by the previous administration to underscore her new boss. This is exactly what a coup attempt might look like in our country. "Although the coup d'état has featured in politics since antiquity, the phrase is of relatively recent coinage  3] the Oxford English Dictionary identifies it as a French expression meaning a "stroke of state". The phrase did not appear within an English text before the nineteenth century except when used in translation of a French source, there being no simple phrase in English to convey the contextualized idea of a "knockout blow to the existing administration within a state". Notice the last few lines ? So, when you talk down to people, I think the only one down is the one doing the talking. | ||
| Reepicheep |
And let me add this also, which I just stumbled across. Here is a quote that supports both my case and my critics...
Guess who that judge is?  So he seems to be simultaneously supporting my perspective (that this is accepted legal activity and par for the course in government) and opposing views on this thread (It is very wrong). And I am kind of right there with him. | ||
| Sifo |
Reep, I agree with most of your post above. I would take exception to this however... It has degraded into two stupid positions: 1) Blacks are getting killed for being black, and cops are criminals 2) There is no problem. While the first part seems to be spot on, to me at least, the second position would be more that the first position is so far from reality that you are not in a frame of mind to be worked with to fix ANYTHING. That's why the BLM movement has become laughable in my mind. Then again, they are probably useful idiots created with cash that can be traced back to Soros. No, I have no evidence to support that last statement. I would be surprised to learn that it isn't true though. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Agreed. I can't understand how BLM can be so impenetrable to common sense. It's hard to find people in the second category... except maybe right after somebody in the first says something really stupid and people are just reacting to it. The two cases I know of where a cop did something either criminal or at least staggeringly stupid were both sitting their asses in jail before the sun set. Nobody was defending them. Heck, they weren't even defending themselves, they were already plea bargaining. (Message edited by reepicheep on February 01, 2017) | ||
| Sifo |
I found this to be an interesting read. Democrats are becoming the party of secession It goes of in multiple directions. One line about Sally Yates seemed to address the issue of the "coup" issue.
The implication, in my mind is that she was herself, working outside of the Constitution in a power grab. I guess you can call it what you like, but it was a pretty brazen thing to do. BTW, I understand that Minnesota has secession rumblings. | ||
| Sifo |
Ohio Pastor Claims Chicago Gangs Want To Work With Trump To Fight Crime Interesting. If Trump could be effective with this, it would make the Democrats heads spin! | ||
| Fb1 |
FB, your [opinions] weren't that bad in this regard, and you are a friend. My "opinions" are quite often facts, in fact, almost always backed up by citations and links for further review (AND verification) by anyone so inclined. At least my opinions (as you call them) aren't "that bad." Whew, that's a load off my mind. You called me nutty; I'm flabbergasted by that. I've posted prolifically on several political threads here on BWB for years - my "MO" for posting up stuff I find of relevance has almost always been the same: Source, snippet (or more), and link. If you, or anyone else, disagrees with the particulars of what I've just posted, I've given you the tools to do further research, fact-check, and possible rebuttal. Easy peasy. Your initial postings regarding former AG Yates showed a woeful lack of grasp on even the most basic specifics of what she did, and her reasoning for so doing. Did you even bother to read anything I posted (including her actual statement and orders to the DOJ)? Doubtful. Why? Well, um, you're tired of something, I guess. You posted up your opinions, and when challenged, several times, you couldn't - or wouldn't - back up your opinions with citations. I fully respect your opinion, but if you want to debate someone - me, in this case - back up your opinions with something I can fact-check. The attempted coup? It's going on as we speak. Hiding in plain sight, as the saying goes. Heck, they even brought Zero out of retirement yesterday, to add more fuel to the flames. MORE TINDER! Why do you think there was such a concerted, coordinated effort in P45's first days in office to paint him as "illegitimate"? EVERYWHERE one turned was that word, spouted by the media, spouted by prominent members of Congress, and spouted by the zombies protesting in the streets. (Riddle me this: What the •••• are they protesting? I doubt there's a single one of them that could tell you in anything resembling a coherent fashion.) The attempted coup is being conducted simultaneously by the left (which, sadly, includes many high-ranking members of our federal government), the bad guys that are pulling their strings (this part is important to understand), and the mainstream media. If you can't see it, it's because you're not paying close enough attention. The protesters? NONE of the protests are organic; this is big business, fully funded and fully coordinated. By whom? Who is trying SO desperately to chase our legally-elected president out of office? Who is trying SO desperately to hang the word "ILLEGITIMATE" around his neck? SOMEBODY is. WHO? It's interesting to note that even though 0bama is out of office (thank God!), the media is STILL rabid left. It hardly seems possible, but they are even MORE rabid left. And if you listen to the various outlets, the narrative is always HARD left, and always - ALWAYS! - the national narrative is in lockstep. Doesn't matter where you turn - TV, newspaper, computer - the message is ALWAYS the same, ALWAYS at the exact same time. This, quite obviously, isn't a coincidence. WHO THE •••• IS STILL CONTROLLING THE MEDIA? And, more importantly, WHY? Community organzing, to the point they brought the Organizer-in-Chief out of retirement yesterday. Ask yourself: What's the end game? Take a good look around, and ask yourself? WHAT'S THE END GAME? Think about that for a moment before you continue reading. You've offered up little in the way of facts, but a lot of opinion. It's apparent that the Christian Science Monitor is a go-to news source for you. Cool, but they're biased; it didn't take me very long to see the bias, and I documented a little of it here on this thread. At least learn to recognize this bias (although, having said that, I bet you already do, and, perhaps even support it). You linked to something from CNN above to make a point? Give me a ••••••• break. You - YOU! - called my political views "nutty." Those are fighting words, but you knew that when you posted them. | ||
| Macbuell |
How awesome would that be ... if Trump cleaned up Obama and Emanuel's mess. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Macbuell, yes it would be very awesome. But as long as the rank and file citizens of Chicago continue to vote in leftist leadership, I don't see how Trump can possibly be successful. | ||
| Reepicheep |
We disagree. I think it is nutty to call what happened an attempted Coup d'etat. You think it is rational and appropriate. OK. I'm not interested in changing my opinion, and don't feel a need to change yours. Though I did get a chuckle out of this facebook post I read earlier today where somebody responded to Elizabeth Warrens' statement about rejecting many of Trump's political nominees...
For the record, I think he sounds nutty. Feel free to reply if you want, I'll read it and try and listen, but I'm moving on. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Reepicheep. You're moving on, cool. But I guess this means I'll have to put away the popcorn... Lol. (Message edited by whisperstealth on February 01, 2017) | ||
| Reepicheep |
A big part of the reason is to not kill this thread. There are useful discussions going on. There will be plenty of other popcorn worthy discussion, I'm sure. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
 | ||
| Court |
There are times when smart and informed folks disagree . . . I confess those times make me perk my ears up. It reminds me to keep an open mind and to constantly be exercising that vigilance to filter the crap folks try to put into my head for advertising and ideological reasons. One of my favorite people to hold discussions with is Dave Gess. He and I have differing views of things . . . on some issues. He has, over 30 years, always been my touchstone to remind me that simply because two folks' opinions aren't aligned it doesn't confer the right or luxury to simply dismiss the opposing views as coming from a "stuppy poo poo face". Dave is smart, brilliant and informed and when we diverge on thoughts it makes me listen to him very carefully. These are the types of discussions, in all candor, that kinda separate the kids from the grown ups . . . As much as I'd like to challenge GH to bet with me until we get so angry we take it out back . . .hahahahaha. But . . I suspect we could never find that neutral 3rd party to hold the money. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Yahoo news says 30 civilians died in the recent raid in Yemen. 30 civilians verses 14 al Qaeda. That's a hell of a civilian to enemy kill ratio if true. If it is true, I think we need to do better. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-makes-sur prise-trip-presidential-205311589.html | ||
| Hootowl |
Question is, where did Yahoo get the casualty figures? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Why don't we just build a huge military base inside Iraq, Syria or some other country in the middle east where there isn't any civilization... start with huge mobile base with mega defense capabilities and draw new borders and declare it part of United States.... inside the base they can build facilities unlike any other built before with all its defense mechanisms remote controlled. (eventually, no actual humans on the base) the Enemy will just keep arriving there to destroy it because it is American and we can just pick them off one by one or 100 x 100 or truck by truck. China is doing it in the middle of the sea... should be easier for us to do as we been there 20+ years already.... | ||
| Torquehd |
Probably from Al Jazero. Any time the imperialist Americans execute a strike, it was always against a poor little women's hospital full of peace loving children and cuddly little bunnies. XdigitalX, that doesn't work. They don't roll up to attack fortified structures as a general rule. They either lob indirect from a safe distance and then hide in caves when we dispatch rotary wing to find them, or they just lay low. One of the general rules of guerrilla warfare is that you only engage in small scale offensive attacks, and only when there is little danger of the enemy shooting back. | ||
| Sifo |
 |
