| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Not even orphaned. Raised by parents who didn't have children...but tax breaks. Farm the kids out to nannies, daycare, whatever was needed to keep them from interrupting MY life as a "parent" - I want to reap all the benefits of "parenthood" like status, praise, and let's not forget those tax breaks! - but I don't want those little brats to inconvenience MY LIFE. Guess what, folks...kid's in jail now, and it's up to you to bail 'em out. Time to snap-to and pay attention! At work we call these "feral children". Not orphaned per se, but certainly not nurtured correctly. | ||
| Sifo |
Global Warming is About Destroying Capitalism? I'd love to hear the defense of this by the global warming crowd. Just for entertainment purposes. Then again, my life on this earth is limited. Why waste it with that. Am I the least bit shocked by this admission? Nope. | ||
| Fb1 |
So I was pretty spot on when I noted that I seemed to have missed the grounds for overturning this EO. Indeed. The left is doing everything in their power to, at a minimum, delegitimize President Trump; they desperately need him out of office, by any means possible. (I noticed yesterday that Marine One was escorted to Andrews AFB by what appeared to be a Cobra gunship...) It appears we're in a race to see who gets to the finish line first: The left, or Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There's a reason his confirmation is being so vigorously stonewalled: If Sessions is confirmed, P45 finally has the last (and biggest) legal tool he needs to begin flushing the swamp in earnest. P45 is taking incoming from ALL sides. Why? Because he soon will have the power to expose, and prosecute, the bad guys. Unless they can get him out of office first....... | ||
| Sifo |
IMHO being mean is purely recreational. It is fine to play the righteous bastard but you risk squandering your political capital if get one little thing wrong because of all the resentment you have unnecessarily cultivated. If you've got substance, you don't need to be mean. You just need to be clear. Using mean, 'morally outraged' tones tend not to clear political arguments, but to muddy them. Lose the mean and polish your arguments instead and you've got a win- win instead of a lose- lose. This applies also to incoherent, screaming professors who protest all crazy-like too. This is why many in the left are not protesting and are not smashing Starbucks windows for free organic coffee. IMHO the refugee ban could still have 99.9% of its original punch with very minor modifications to edit the mean out. I think those edits would also slightly strengthen the order. Is this all aimed at Trump's EO on vetting of people entering our country from certain countries rife with terrorists? If so, could you expand on the "mean" that you see there? | ||
| Fb1 |
Because he soon will have the power to expose, and prosecute, the bad guys. Interesting document dump from the FBI late last night: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/04/mi dnight-release-again-178-page-fbi-clinton-email-do cument-release-with-interesting-content/ If you follow the link, Sundance has provided the 178 pages of documents in a readable format by using the services of Scribd. (As always on the Treehouse, if a topic catches your attention, be sure to read the comments on that thread; Treepers are great detectives...) A person has to want to get pretty deep in the weeds to slog through this stuff, but consider this: If ONE of the bad guys (say, um, Hillary) falls (say, at the hands of AG Sessions), they ALL fall; they (and there's a BUNCH of them) are all joined at the hip. Here's a direct link to the documents, as hosted on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/338384457/FBI-Rele ase-Hillary-Clinton-Investigation-Part-06#from_emb ed Maybe begin reading on page ten. The letter from the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary directed at FBI Director James Comey that begins on page 34 is interesting reading, as well. So many weeds, so little time... | ||
| Fb1 |
...all the resentment you have unnecessarily cultivated. The "resentment" isn't organic - it's a fully-coordinated hit on President Trump. The "resentment" is FAKE NEWS. | ||
| H0gwash |
The only 'mean' that I see in Trump's refugee ban is the priority for religious minorities. In the big picture, this is a small complaint. I think plenty of USA supporters who are at risk will be the wrong kind of Muslim, or else you will have refugees systematically lying about their religion. 'Extreme vetting' is a far less offensive term that sounds easier to enforce than 'religious vetting' and I'm not sure how you ultimately prove a person's religion anyway. | ||
| Sifo |
Well... Given that the EO in question has no mention of religion, I'll just take that to mean that there in no "mean" in the EO. | ||
| H0gwash |
While there is professional resistance against Trump, I see broader organic resentment against Trump in California especially with professional women because of the mean tone of his campaign. I would really really like to see a contract for professional protesting though, it would be a fascinating document. | ||
| H0gwash |
This is from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/0 1/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-ter rorist-entry-united-states "(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization." DISCLAIMER; A lot of this I don't understand technically, and i don't understand a lot of what judges do, but this this seems to be the constitutionally ambiguous language that IMHO does not add to the strength of the EO and only hinders its application. | ||
| Sifo |
While there is professional resistance against Trump, I see broader organic resentment against Trump in California especially with professional women because of the mean tone of his campaign. Again, with the "mean". Specifics please. I get the idea that you are simply parroting what has been spoon fed to you, not actually looking at was was said and done by Trump himself. It's very difficult to address anything you say when it's such a vague accusation. If you happen to be talking about what Trump has said about individuals that he was running against, then sure, there's a swamp full of mean being thrown by all. Nothing at all outstanding with Trump there. | ||
| Sifo |
This is from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/0 1/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-ter rorist-entry-united-states "(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization." DISCLAIMER; A lot of this I don't understand technically, and i don't understand a lot of what judges do, but this this seems to be the constitutionally ambiguous language that IMHO does not add to the strength of the EO and only hinders its application. OK, you've got me. It mentions "religion". Not any specific one. Do you understand that this is discussing an stating that when the travel ban is lifted, those who can claim religious persecution, as a minority religion where they are coming from, will be treated as a priority. Is that really what you mean by "mean"? | ||
| H0gwash |
"Hillary for Prison 2016" was a mean spirited campaign promise that is not yet delivered and may never be. Democrats now on the defensive have appropriated the tone promising to be the New Party of No which does not strike me as politically productive and I am sorry to see it. | ||
| H0gwash |
Is that really what you mean by "mean"? Ultimately yes. IMHO it is the crack in the door in which protesters have jammed their foot. Take the crack away and be able to shut the door and lock it. | ||
| Sifo |
So, yes, as I've already acknowledged, he said mean things about his political adversaries. The same was done in kind. Nothing outstanding there. He actually backed off on that campaign promise fairly early in the campaign. Rightly so IMO too. He did say that if his AG found reason to prosecute her, that would be up to the AG. He would neither advocate for it, or stand in the way. Is it really mean to claim you will prosecute an admitted criminal? | ||
| Sifo |
Is that really what you mean by "mean"? Ultimately yes. IMHO it is the crack in the door in which protesters have jammed their foot. Take the crack away and be able to shut the door and lock it. So you consider it mean to provide refugee status to a religious minority who is being persecuted for their religious beliefs? I'm trying hard to not put those words in your mouth, but that's what I'm hearing from you. | ||
| H0gwash |
It's actually the converse that I think is a bit mean, that we would exclude some Muslims who are in the same plight as their peers but who simply worship the wrong thing. In my book a christian or hindi terrorist from anywhere coming here is just as bad as any muslim terrorist. Vet against the terrorism, not just the religon. | ||
| Sifo |
It's actually the converse that I think is a bit mean, that we would exclude some Muslims who are in the same plight as their peers but who simply worship the wrong thing. As long as you wish to discuss the specific religions, you do understand that the particular countries involved don't have any real problems with discrimination against Muslims based on their faith. In general, when you are a member of the dominant religion, you don't really face discrimination to the point of becoming a refugee. Protection of the minority is a large part of what our first amendment is all about. You find this idea to be offensive? Beyond that, stating a priority path for the most vulnerable, does not exclude a path for others who are experiencing persecution for other reasons. Your reasoning IMO is simply flawed. | ||
| Sifo |
In my book a christian or hindi terrorist from anywhere coming here is just as bad as any muslim terrorist. Vet against the terrorism, not just the religon. BTW, I completely agree with you on this. It's one of the big reasons we need to control our boarders. | ||
| Blake |
It's been standard US policy for the last 70 years or so to aid persecuted minorities being targeted by totalitarian mass-murderers by granting them preferential asylum in America. For some reason, the left now thinks that policy is "mean" actually asserting that it is "unconstitutional", because CHRISTIANS!!! Cause stopping genocide is only okay if the victims are Muslim? If you're not familiar with the letter that Paul wrote to his fellow Christians in Rome, check it out, especially chapter 1, verses 28-32. http://biblehub.com/context/romans/1-28.htm Most especially,
"I'm a nasty woman! – Ashley Judd "I've thought a lot lately about blowing up the White House." – Madonna In the short term, some lies seem to produce the desired results, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." Repeat a lie often enough, and people will start to believe it. "Ben Ghazi was caused by an Internet video." The followers learn from their revered leaders. Alinsky's rules guide them. Alinsky dedicated his book to "Lucifer, the first rebel." You cannot make this up. The leftists are following the Nazi (fellow leftists) playbook to the letter. Whip up emotion through control of media, and terrorize opposition. | ||
| Sifo |
As for "mean" campaign rhetoric, what's meaner? Saying you will prosecute one admitted felon, or claiming that roughly 50% of the country is deplorable and irredeemable? | ||
| Blake |
Some of Alinsky's "rules": "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.“ Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. So just call the opposition racists and Nazis, homophobes, islamophobes, white supremacists, etc. No need for substance. See previous rule. | ||
| H0gwash |
Christians are refugees too and I am happy that they can find a home here where surely they will be more appreciated. I am not saying Trumps EO is unconstitutional. Common citizens and some lawmakers apparently don't know and that's a practical problem. I included the bit in the text from the white house website "to the extent permitted by law" because maybe that makes it inherently constitutional, which would be nice. Not trying to fan flames here, just sharing my perspective. Hope you all are having grand breakfasts and enjoying the weekend. | ||
| Blake |
U.S. Code 2385: | ||
| Blake |
Didn't mean to pick on you specifically Hogs. Breakfast was wonderful. Smoked salmon on toasted bagels with cream cheese, capers and tomato. Then outside to give the Catahoula a bath. Then the post bath battle that he demands. I have so many chores needing tended,mIm not sure which to tackle first. Easier to procrastinate here a while longer. Hahahah. (Message edited by Blake on February 04, 2017) | ||
| Sifo |
I am not saying Trumps EO is unconstitutional. Common citizens and some lawmakers apparently don't know and that's a practical problem. I included the bit in the text from the white house website "to the extent permitted by law" because maybe that makes it inherently constitutional, which would be nice. You seem to be using some pretty tortured logic. "To the extent permitted by law" is simply recognizing that there are laws on the books that allow for this, within certain guidelines. Keep in mind, they are talking about helping people "to the extent permitted by law". I'm still trying to figure out what's mean about that. That is where this conversation started. I've let you guide me through it. This is where we are now. I'll admit, I'm still confused about the details of this meanness of which you speak. It almost seems like your filter for news may need some tuning. I have no doubt that you have been told Trump is mean.  | ||
| H0gwash |
My answer was given 8 posts above. You disagree with that and that's OK. I don't think it is controversial to say Trump is mean, whether or not it is justified. There seem to be relatively few people saying Trump is a super nice guy. I do appreciate his recent attempts to appear more 'traditionally presidential' because I imagine he has to work a bit at it. | ||
| Sifo |
8 posts above would be one of my posts. Was it by chance this... It's actually the converse that I think is a bit mean, that we would exclude some Muslims who are in the same plight as their peers but who simply worship the wrong thing. We are at a point, not of disagreement, but of not communicating. If he is a nice or mean guy wasn't really the topic of discussion. It was about a specific EO being mean. Or not. You have failed to provide any credible evidence that it was meant to be, or actually is mean. Instead you are now simply saying he is mean. I guess the idea is that if he is mean, his orders must by extension be mean. | ||
| Aesquire |
A lot of this I don't understand technically Well, it's written in a foreign language, so don't feel bad. What it means, practically, is if you are a persecuted minority and trying to escape having your family raped and murdered, the good old USA will give you shelter. As we usually do. ( this was NOT the case under Obama. His policies were the opposite. ) think is a bit mean, that we would exclude some Muslims who are in the same plight as their peers but who simply worship the wrong thing. Oh, no, if that Muslim is a persecuted minority, we give him the same shot at shelter we would give a Hindu or a Pagan. You do understand that there are different sects of Islam, and if you are Shia in a Sunni land you are in danger? And vice versa. Salafis are pretty much in deep crap everywhere. Except here. People in the majority don't need protection from the majority. There's no need to protect Baptists in Georgia. Coptics in Egypt? They need all the help they can get, since, what? more or less than half? have been murdered since Obama supported the terrorist takeover? ( fortunately they had a counter coup and kicked the Muslim Brotherhood out of power ) Vet against the terrorism, not just the religon. Yes, that's why the "ban" is a pause on people coming from the 7 nations Obama's regime determined ( correctly, funny enough ) are hotbeds of terrorism. No Mention at all about keeping Muslims out. Just all the possible terrorists from Obama's list. what you should grasp is that you have been lied to systematically, deliberately, in a coordinated series of lies, by the Network News and the Leftist hate groups. many sponsored by an ex-nazi informant. There is no Muslim ban. Now if you want to argue there SHOULD be, we can discuss that, but bitching about a made up thing is just raising your blood pressure over fairy dust. It is not there. I don't think it is controversial to say Trump is mean Not with me. I think he's a jerk. Never liked the guy. Still don't. ( although I think his Supreme Court pick is a decent one... he could do far worse. Obama did do far worse, choosing folk active in the leadership of racist groups, and have no respect IMHO, for the Constitution they swore to uphold. ) I do appreciate his recent attempts to appear more 'traditionally presidential' because I imagine he has to work a bit at it. Agreed. It's got to be driving him nuts not spouting crap at will. I didn't expect much improvement, but I want far more than we've got. Common citizens and some lawmakers apparently don't know... Oh, yeah! That's a MAJOR problem. We are being lied to systematically. Today CNN, NBC, etc. are so far in the tank with political activism that if a house burns down because of smoking in bed they will blame Trump. Traffic light out? Trump's fault. Cloudy day? Trump is a Denier! It's insane that I can't trust the nightly news any more than a subject of the Soviet Union in 1953 could trust Pravda. It's just true. Now... OTOH.... WTF? Bowling Green? Did I miss something or is the current Press secretary as full of crap as the last one? Please enlighten me. | ||
| H0gwash |
I think others on the list may be tired of me repeating myself on Trump's mean refugee ban in various ways so I will answer if another person asks again. People in the majority don't need protection from the majority I think this is an unnecessary oversimplification. Mainstream Muslims may be persecuted for political, rather than religious reasons. Just vet against terrorists whether or not they have religion, are the mainstream or the minority religion or have no religion. |
