| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Posting this here because I'm kind of hoping that we won't actually need a "All your progressive terrorist attacks rolled into on thread" thread. That might be a productive thread though. This, in my mind is nothing but terrorism. Using violence against innocent individuals who dare to not follow their indoctrination without question. It's clear this person was trying to flee from an out of control mob. They chased him and knocked him unconscious. You can hear people cheering what had just happened. Eventually they start a chant of "peaceful protest". Peaceful my ass! It's time to start treating these people like the terrorists that they are. Full story here... VIDEO: Trump Supporter Beaten by Anti-Trump Protesters at Portland Airport | ||
| Macbuell |
I don't disagree. To me the left is driven by emotion. When you let emotion lead, typically logic and reason fall by the way side. But that doesn't make my statement any less true. | ||
| Mnscrounger |
"Until we stop yelling at each other and actually start listening to each other, we will never be able to compromise." Macbuell, I understand and agree for the need of respect in debate, but there are some times when you can't compromise. There is always the possibility that one side is flat wrong on facts. If I say the earth is flat, and you say it is round, where is the compromise? Truth in policy will always win in the long run. | ||
| Fb1 |
Update: only one person has been charged, and it appears that he is not a member of any mosque, but rather a disaffected white kid: I watched the "facts" of this shooting morph right before my eyes yesterday. During the course of about 12-15 hours the who's, what's and why's changed 180 degrees. I don't know what the "real" truth is, but I know the mainstream media, at the behest of their masters, will shape the narrative to suit their agenda. Thanks for the link; I remain skeptical that ANY of us yet know the truth of what happened. FB | ||
| Reepicheep |
No offense taken. I've been trying to help friends on the left make their points better, because at the end of the day I do think they have something important to bring to the table. But when they bring it covered by a big unpleasant pile of irrational personal attacks and hate, nobody is going to dig down to the real nugget, and everyone is just mad at each other, and that just sucks. The immigration bru-ha-ha is the perfect example. I actually would have preferred Trump not have created the executive order, so I actually align with the left to some degree. But my reasons are completely different. I think the right (including Trump) are completely correct about their concerns. But at the end of the day, when it comes down to which mistake I make, I would rather accept a terrorist than send a refugee back to die. I can live with the risk for another 90 days while the verification programs get cleaned up (which they very much likely need). But I understand that I am sacrificing safety for liberty. And that the lives I am sacrificing are innocent and probably not my own, which weighs heavily on me. That's the rational debate I wish we were having. Do we want to error towards liberty over safety? Or safety over liberty. Because we WILL trade off one or the other. But then the liberals who I want to agree with just go... literally... completely irrational and completely factually incorrect to try and satisfy their stack of emotionally driven misconceptions they have carefully built over the years. Which completely consumes the oxygen around the discussion on a waste of time, instead of getting the country to start talking through real and hard questions, where we can eventually respect whatever decision we reach as reasonable and respectful even if we disagree with it. If we don't base it on facts, I don't see how we can ever get there. | ||
| Ratbuell |
And those people who "peacefully protested" the inauguration by burning cars and trashing buildings were charged. Admittedly I haven't heard how that went...anyone know? There was talk of serious charges and penalties but I honestly haven't heard a peep about it. That said...if that is going to be the template, we need to follow up on these things. LEOs need to have the empowerment to put THEIR foot down at crap like this, step in, make arrests...and the court system needs to be empowered to lock these ass-hats up for a long time. Send the message that it simply won't be tolerated anymore. | ||
| Fb1 |
Dtaylor/Doug: Would you mind sharing your opinion of PM Trudeau as your country's leader? If you choose not to I understand. Best, Ferris | ||
| Reepicheep |
(Oh, and my risk mitigation was to get a CCW permit, and I would encourage as many other responsible law abiding US citizens as possible do the same. An armed and capable US citizen should be hiding behind every blade of grass.) | ||
| Ratbuell |
Reep: F you, ya bastard. Those of us who live in The Peoples Republik der Marylander (or similar)...don't have that option. Much as I'd love to carry...it's going to take serious legislation to make that possible. And an edit to the rioting arrests post above - I did a quick google and it appears charges against four journalists were dropped because they were journalists, reporting on the events. Now...I understand that journalists get a "pass" on a lot of stuff. And I admit I don't have all the details. But...if you're a "journalist" and if (again, I don't have facts here) you throw a brick...you have ceased to be a reporter and have now become a rioter. I don't know if they did. I don't know the extent of their involvement in the events of the day. If it was restricted to twitter posts...that's one thing. If they got physical? Hmmm... And I was unable to find information regarding the other couple hundred arrests - which actually surprises me, considering they were supposed to go to court last Saturday. | ||
| Aesquire |
Confirmation bias is real on both sides. Most here are inclined to believe me if I post about how the previous President was dishonest. Because he often was. A few others would believe if I posted about some evil in the U.S. government ( not politics ) like the Veterans administration denying support & healthcare to troops returned from Iraq. Because they are inclined to distrust the government. ... and it's true. The bias among us keeps going when I point out the troops denied help by the VA are suffering from exposure to poison gas that Saddam hid among conventional shells and was released when we disposed of the shells by demolition. For reasons that escape me the Bush administration never admitted to this. For obvious reasons the Obama administration lied about this. And some jerk told the Donald there were no wmds. .... and Americans are still suffering the effects of them. Which bias button am I pushing here? As to the news? Total dishonesty. Propaganda. And calls to keep up the protests from the ex-president with no call for non violence. That's not bias. That's hate and evil. | ||
| Sifo |
So Trump is set to simply announce his pick for Supreme Court. Dems are already saying they are going to fight the pick. I'm not sure how to compromise with that. At least wait until a pick has been made, then you can set a strategy based on what you dislike about the pick. As it is, I simply expect the pick will be painted as any or all of the following... Homophobic, anti-feminist, racist, science denier, or pro-big business. I'm sure I've left at least a few things out, but... YAWN... Seriously, why compromise with these people? I've had it! | ||
| Ratbuell |
So they're fighting...but they don't know against what or whom? Idiots. Fighting for the sake of fighting. I hope he picks someone they've previously not fought. Not necessarily someone they've supported because we need to reinstate some real values in the Supreme Court...but someone the dems haven't had an issue with in the past. On record. Wouldn't THAT be fun to watch?? | ||
| Fb1 |
The immigration bru-ha-ha is the perfect example. The "immigration bru-ha-ha" is entirely a construct of the MSM and their masters. I've studied-up on some of the groups who are "protesting" - this is easy to do because often they carry professionally-made signs identifying their handlers. Guess who's funding these protesters? (Hint: Same folks who funded the "protesters" during P45's rallies...) And then the MSM, in a quick, coordinated fashion, fuels the flames. Community organizing, folks, on a grand scale. The majority of Americans support President Trump regarding his EO on temporarily halting immigration from the seven countries that pResident 0bama's administration decreed as representing hightened terrorist potential. The MSM, of course, would have us believe otherwise. I actually would have preferred Trump not have created the executive order, so I actually align with the left to some degree. Well, he fulfilled one of the promises that got him elected; kudos for that. And in the simplest terms, he clamped down - temporarily - on immigration from countries that the PREVIOUS administration singled out as breeding grounds for terrorists. I've read that 109 folks were detained and questioned, out of the estimated 325,000 folks who visit our country each day. Statistically, does that even register? I'm 100% behind this EO, and you're not. Cool; we're both still on the same side.  | ||
| Sifo |
Honestly, I've spent 30+ years trying to understand the liberal mind. My wife's entire family is hard core liberal. In my opinion, it boarders on insanity. If they could express a thought out opinion, there would be the possibility of compromise. When their entire theology is based on opposition of the other side, there simply is no compromise to be had. | ||
| Sifo |
How do you compromise with this? Calif. To Consider Enacting Statewide Sanctuary Oh, I know... By building the boarder wall on the East side of CA! | ||
| Aesquire |
So they're fighting...but they don't know against what or whom? Actually, I have some sympathy for the D's here. When the mysterious death of the former Supreme happened, most non-Obama-fans knew his choice to replace him would be a bad one, even before we knew his name. That was correct, he was a progressive activist type and would cheerfully take away your rights if he got into a position of that much power. It was expected of Barry to make such a choice, and he did. Donald is expected to pick a rational ally of Constitutional rights. If your power is based on taking others, that's a horrible choice. So of course the D's will oppose ANY Trump nominee. So will Establishment R's. Don't expect My Little Pony cooperation in D.C. until after they're all zombies. Even then, there will be Soros sponsored Zombie Rights marches. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/sa ul_alinsky_in_the_white_housestill.html | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/01/rememb er_the_crowds_protesting_when_obama_banned_immigra nts.html I do keep in mind that American Thinker is biased. It's hard to find a balance between Trump fans & haters. Unlike Obama, which was along ideological lines. Fans didn't like the Constitution, haters did. Pretty simple. With Trump it's more complex. He isn't really an ideologue like Barry. It's more personality and policy and mixed at that. | ||
| Reepicheep |
FB, yup. I wished the media would have lead an intelligent discussion around the executive order. But I am not the least bit surprised that they didn't. Sorry Rat. I agree with you. I actually had a paragraph in my original post about restoring 2nd amendment rights in NY and NJ (I forgot about MD) as a control to manage the risk, but deleted it as a distraction from my main point. I avoid MD whenever possible because of their restrictions on law abiding citizens. Last time I was there I elected NOT to take the train down to the inner harbor with the rest of the group we were travelling with, and one of the reasons was that I wouldn't go near Baltimore without my CCW rights if I can help it. It was pretty depressing to see the demeanor of all the 13 year old kids the next morning after they returned, having seen the train stop, pick up a gang of thugs, and have those thugs forcibly take the purse of an innocent 20 year old minority female (because they were bigger and stronger) and get off at the next stop. And at the risk of another tangent... I've thought about this in hindsight a lot. What if I had been there and carrying? With the wisdom hindsight (which I may get to use in the future), I would have... 1) Been ready to quickly act if things turned violent, but not actually done anything while it looked like just a personal property theft and while she seemed willing to comply. 2) When they left, to have taken a collection up among all the people traveling with me, right then and there and in cash, and handed her a big pile of money and said "this is to prove we will always outnumber the assholes" and left wishing her a nice day. | ||
| Macbuell |
Honestly, things were bad when Obama was President but if this is how the Left is going to behave for the next four years, it just makes me sad. | ||
| Fb1 |
Open question for the participants on this thread. First, a statement of fact: There was an attempted coup against our government last night. The question: Is the mainstream media reporting on this? | ||
| Macbuell |
Please provide facts. | ||
| Reepicheep |
If you are referring to the Attorney General directing prosecutors not to enforce particular prosecutinos, then I would say that's the kind of hyperbole that is unhelpful. An Obama presidential appointee whos'e role is prosecutorial discretion exercised that discretion. That's fine. Trump fired her immediately, and appointed an acting replacement. That's fine too. That replacement is exercising their prosecutorial discretion, which is aligned with the new president. I don't think saying things like attempted coup is helpful to either side. (Message edited by reepicheep on January 31, 2017) | ||
| Fb1 |
Please provide facts. I already have. ...that's the kind of hyperbole that is unhelpful. It wasn't meant as hyperbole. We can safely assume several things: 1) She (former acting-AG Yates) did NOT make this decision unilaterally. There is 0% chance that she decided, on her own, to defy our lawfully-elected president and his lawfully-written and executed EO. 2) If the above is true, then who gave the GO command? The answer, IMO, is the same person (or, perhaps, entity) that pulled 0bama's strings for the past eight years. I'll concede this much: coup is a strong word. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Those are all speculative. She was within her authority to do what she did. The remediation was to fire her for it. Trump did. I was in a discussion yesterday with somebody on the other side who said "Saudi Arabia" wasn't on the list because Trump has money there. Even after explaining that it was Obama's list, and that the stated rational was to block entry from countries with ineffective national security resources that allow proper vetting. People on her side on the thread did the web equivalent of the slow blink, and then acted like I never said anything, and went back to "Trump is bad" and "It's for money". It made them all sound irrational and irrelevant. I would put declaring last nights minor and predictable drama as a coup in that same category. Here is the whole story: Obama appointee opposed Trump. Trump fired them and put in a Trump Appointee. Yeah. Duh. Moving on. For what it was like talking to these people about that topic, see this video... https://youtu.be/uMSV4OteqBE I wasn't trying to share the facts with them to help me. I get it. I was trying to help them, because like I said early, I am sympathetic to their conclusion (though for totally different reasons). They were far beyond help. | ||
| Fb1 |
She was within her authority to do what she did. Opinion? Fact? Both? Source? -----------------
Source, more, including a viewable copy of the FOIA request: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/husband-of-fired -ag-top-donor-to-dems-obama/article/2613466 | ||
| Fb1 |
| ||
| Fb1 |
How interesting. I stayed up late last night/this morning, watching the AG Yates thing play out. I followed nearly in real time as P45 fired her (rightfully so). As I turned in and thought about what a remarkable thing I'd just witnessed - our Attorney General DEFYING President Trump - the word "coup" came to mind. I slept on it, thought about it some more this morning, and decided I felt enough conviction in my beliefs to use that word on this thread. The interesting part? A few moments ago I stumbled across a link to this:
Source, more: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31 /attorney-general-sally-yates-firing-first-step-qu ashing-coup-bureaucrats/ | ||
| Fb1 |
Damn, I have to post this up again. Her rationale for mutiny is breathtaking:  Even Brit Hume is flabbergasted:
Source: https://twitter.com/brithume/status/82626483990340 8128/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw No way she made this decision on her own... | ||
| Fb1 |
  Source: https://twitter.com/woodruffbets/status/8262929319 12941568/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw |
