The W
Views: 128046767
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.9.17 1743
The W - Current Events & Politics - The first ten days (Page 2)
This thread has 14 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.15
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(8 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (47 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.62
So, somebody terminally ill died? And it happened to be while she was waiting transfer back to the country? That's sad, but there's no way to know if she would have died the second she touched down. To say she died because she wasn't on US soil is (probably) a stretch.

EDIT: And can somebody explain to me why it's perfectly fine that Obama bombed the shit out of these seven countries,(Killing thousands of innocent men, women and children) and nobody batted an eye, yet restricting travel from there is somehow the worst thing possible and we need to protest at every airport, bus station and wherever else people are holding ridiculous signs?

(edited by StaggerLee on 1.2.17 0008)
Big G
Frankfurter








Since: 21.8.03
From: the people who brought you Steel Magnolias....

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.21
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    But don't let the actual facts get in the way of shitting on somebody's administration you don't like.



Haven't yet. Don't intend to start now.

This is amazing and quite confusing to watch though. An entire country experiencing such a strong cognitive dissonance. There is a similar albeit much more minor effect going on here too, and I suspect the UK. When (if) we come out the other side it's going to be very interesting to see how this is addressed in historical documentation. There are huge slabs of the populace staring across the divide and thinking their opposites are batshit crazy or morons or both.

This was tweeted by a prominent Aussie sports journalist during the men's tennis final on Sunday Night (Federer/Nadal):



The responses illustrate a snapshot that supports my hypothesis I think.

On the EO in question, I read an article from someone who I think positioned themselves as center-right who suggested that the process up to execution of the EO was - not irregular, but maybe unusual? But Trump's an irregular, maybe unusual politician. Any maybe that's all that is unusual about the EO drafting. Or maybe it's just another set of alternative facts and I'm not smart enough to tell the difference. Here's the link, so feel free to judge for yourselves: https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas (It's long). The title is awful, and a lot of it is partisan, but there seems (to me anyway) to be some good points about executive process sprinkled throughout.

I also read another good article that resonated with me: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/why-donald-trump-win-walt-disney?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

Maybe because I grew up in a very conservative household, in a very conservative small town that's pretty much dying now, and that I having moved to the big city and been drifting to the left as I get older.

One thing it's made me think about is the changing face of conformity. My world view used to have conformity as being owned by the conservatives. "Get your hair cut. Tuck your shirt in. Stand up straight. Go to Church". Whereas the lefties were a lot more loosey goosey. "Grow your hair, liberal bathing habits, walk your own path, have some doobage, it's your right". Whereas now, again to my world view, this seems to have swapped. The left with the SJW movement "You can't say that. Identity! Privilege!" seeming to want conformity with an albeit admirable goal (equality, safety, love) with the right "If I want to be an obnoxious arsehole, that's my right". Feels like it's swapped over.

I never used to think about shit like this before Donald ran for office.



I hate EZBoard Day.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: In a Blue State finally

Since last post: 229 days
Last activity: 32 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.57
    Originally posted by StaggerLee


    EDIT: And can somebody explain to me why it's perfectly fine that Obama bombed the shit out of these seven countries,(Killing thousands of innocent men, women and children) and nobody batted an eye, yet restricting travel from there is somehow the worst thing possible and we need to protest at every airport, bus station and wherever else people are holding ridiculous signs?

    (edited by StaggerLee on 1.2.17 0008)


Because nobody believed Obama bombed people for being Muslim.

The protesters believe Trump is banning Muslims from entering or returning to the country, as evidenced by the #MuslimBan hashtag use.

Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.42
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
        Originally posted by StaggerLee
        So, is the sky falling where you all live?

        No "Muslim ban", only a TEMPORARY halting of visas for the listed countries. Hey, remember when Obama halted visas too?


      Not just a halting of visas; they're stopping people who already have visas from entering the country, denying them access to their lawyers, and defying court orders. But, hey, as long as you can pick out one small part of it that's vaguely similar to something Obama did, then it's fine...and the media is so terrible for not treating them exactly the same.

    No. They aren't. Please keep up with the current events. Anybody with a Green Card is allowed in. Visas can be revoked and suspended.


Yes, they CAN be, but the point is you were saying that this is just like what Obama did, but in fact it isn't, because this revokes visas which have already been granted, and that didn't. As for the Green Cards, the fact is that this policy, intentionally or otherwise, DID stop people with them from returning to the country. Maybe that was poor communication, maybe it was intentional, but don't tell me I'm wrong because the policy changed after they did that.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    [Quote]No, the AG is NOT supposed to support the Administration when it does something unConstitutional. A point which a certain Republican named Jeff Sessions specifically made to that very appointee during her Senate confirmation hearings. Maybe he meant that you're only supposed to support the Constitution over a black President?


Um, you are aware that this EO, like every other one that has been issued was run through the DOJ Legal Compliance Office right? It was presented and deemed to be legal. So YOU thinking it's unConstitutional means nothing when the DOJ has already reviewed it.
And yes, The AG is an employee of the Executive branch. Their boss is the POTUS. They can resign if they feel a law is unjust, but they cannot direct everyone in the DOJ to ignore it and not expect their boss to discipline or fire them.




So Sessions was...lying? Telling this woman to undermine a sitting President without cause? Ignorant? Which of these scenarios would make him a good choice for AG?

Anyway, I think Sessions actually had it right. An AG should stand up against an unConstitutional act by the President. Just as Eliot Richardson did.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.62
    Originally posted by Jaguar
      Originally posted by StaggerLee


      EDIT: And can somebody explain to me why it's perfectly fine that Obama bombed the shit out of these seven countries,(Killing thousands of innocent men, women and children) and nobody batted an eye, yet restricting travel from there is somehow the worst thing possible and we need to protest at every airport, bus station and wherever else people are holding ridiculous signs?

      (edited by StaggerLee on 1.2.17 0008)


    Because nobody believed Obama bombed people for being Muslim.

    The protesters believe Trump is banning Muslims from entering or returning to the country, as evidenced by the #MuslimBan hashtag use.




So, you're saying the media narrative is effective. Got it. Such a shame ISLAM and MUSLIM are nowhere in the EO.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.62
EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the 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.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.14
Expect these people are not terrorists. The GOP is lumbing them together with peope who went through hoops to get green cards and visas. To be fair no one from those countries have come here to kill us. We went to through countries looking for trouble. None of what is being done will keep us safe. It will actual encourage more terrorism like sayng shooting up Mosque in Quebec or burning one down in Texas. Trump has caused more tragedy than helped. Honestly, he is never going to help anyone but himself.

(edited by lotjx on 1.2.17 0855)


http://comicbookspotlight.wordpress.com/



Now previewing the Fall TV lineup.@realjoecarfley
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: In a Blue State finally

Since last post: 229 days
Last activity: 32 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.57
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    So, you're saying the media narrative is effective. Got it. Such a shame ISLAM and MUSLIM are nowhere in the EO.


The media narrative was created over a year ago, by one man and one many only: Donald Trump

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration


    (New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.


Just because you believe Trump has since changed his mind and his intent is no longer a Muslim Ban doesn't mean that everybody else believes it.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: In a Blue State finally

Since last post: 229 days
Last activity: 32 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.57
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Just going to point out that someone died while this was being incompetently handled, as well as the fact that apparently the rest of the green card holding family members have not been permitted to fly home either.

    http://www.fox2detroit.com/​news/​local-​news/​232856168-​story


      Hager said he was returning home with his family that included his sick mom. They were returning home to the United States where his mother has lived since 1995. As they were waiting in line at the airport in Iraq on Friday, he was told that he could pass through because he was a U.S. citizen. But his family members - including his mom - weren't allowed, despite holding green cards.


    I'm gonna move on from this for the moment - don't really feel the need to be piling on against you, Stagger


That news station is now reporting that the man's mother apparently died 10 days before the ban, so I apologize for disseminating made up bullshit
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.62
And that was sorta my point to begin with. We are getting all these narratives thrown at us that we accept without verifying anything. That's why the first thing I asked was did anybody read the EO.

I'm ore right leaning than 97% of the board, I know that. But in the past 12 years, I've learned to just not believe either side and to read as much as possible.

Our opinions might differ, but we all want an honest recap of facts and a chance to form our own opinions about them.
Unfortunately in our 24 hour news cycle we never get fully vetted news stories.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.42
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    And that was sorta my point to begin with. We are getting all these narratives thrown at us that we accept without verifying anything. That's why the first thing I asked was did anybody read the EO.

    I'm ore right leaning than 97% of the board, I know that. But in the past 12 years, I've learned to just not believe either side and to read as much as possible.

    Our opinions might differ, but we all want an honest recap of facts and a chance to form our own opinions about them.
    Unfortunately in our 24 hour news cycle we never get fully vetted news stories.


What have you learned about Trump, Fox News, Breitbart, and other conservative sources of information in your studies?
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.62
That they are just as slanted as the supposed "professional" journalists. And about 90% of all media sources are 100% full of shit.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.42
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    That they are just as slanted as the supposed "professional" journalists. And about 90% of all media sources are 100% full of shit.


If you think they're all full of shit, how do you know?

StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.62
How do I know what?
How do I know this isn't a Muslim ban? Because I can read the EO.
How do I know the Joint Cheif and National Director of Intelligence aren't banned from the NSC? Again, because I read the briefing on the matter.

Just because you really believe somebody is wanting to do evil, doesn't mean that they are. Simple fact checking by actually reading things like the text of laws, EOs or other official documents takes away the gray areas and fills in the blanks.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.14
The military released a ten year old video and passed it off as the Yemen raid. As for reading the EO and how it was implemented are two different things. The White House said it was 109 passports, but it was 100,000. Bannon being in the NSC is an utter disgrace.



http://comicbookspotlight.wordpress.com/



Now previewing the Fall TV lineup.@realjoecarfley
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.42
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    How do I know what?
    How do I know this isn't a Muslim ban? Because I can read the EO.
    How do I know the Joint Cheif and National Director of Intelligence aren't banned from the NSC? Again, because I read the briefing on the matter.




In other words, if the Administration says one thing, and the press says another, you just assume that the Administration is telling the truth, and the press is lying.

It is a Muslim ban in intent, but set up a different way to pass Constitutional muster.

No one said that those people were banned from the NSC. What was reported is that they had their positions taken away, which they did.

The Trump Administration lies all the time, specifically for the purpose of convincing people like you not to believe the truth when you hear it.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.62



    In other words, if the Administration says one thing, and the press says another, you just assume that the Administration is telling the truth, and the press is lying.

    It is a Muslim ban in intent, but set up a different way to pass Constitutional muster.

    No one said that those people were banned from the NSC. What was reported is that they had their positions taken away, which they did.

    The Trump Administration lies all the time, specifically for the purpose of convincing people like you not to believe the truth when you hear it.


I will believe am actually legal document over the media 10 times out of 10. One is verified and a legal recording of what is being done, the other is an often slanted version bent to fit a narrative. Both from conservative and liberal leaning media outlets.

As for the people on the NYC, they're still there, they just are not required to participate in every single meeting.



And if this is, as you claim, a ban just to keep Muslims out of the country, are you telling me that there are only 7 Muslim nations in the world?
How can you sit with a straight face and cling to that when the facts are, there are other Muslim majority population nations that are not effected by this ban?

Every administration puts out their version of the truth. The last 8 years we couldn't even get the administration to admit that terror attacks were indeed terror attacks. So spare me the "people like you who won't believe the truth when they hear it" crap.

(edited by StaggerLee on 5.2.17 1009)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.62
https://mobile.twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/827957445469282306/photo/1

Want to know why I'd believe a legal document over a reporter?
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 5 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.03
did multiple judges ACTUALLY READ THE EO or nah
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.42
    Originally posted by StaggerLee



      In other words, if the Administration says one thing, and the press says another, you just assume that the Administration is telling the truth, and the press is lying.

      It is a Muslim ban in intent, but set up a different way to pass Constitutional muster.

      No one said that those people were banned from the NSC. What was reported is that they had their positions taken away, which they did.

      The Trump Administration lies all the time, specifically for the purpose of convincing people like you not to believe the truth when you hear it.


    I will believe am actually legal document over the media 10 times out of 10. One is verified and a legal recording of what is being done, the other is an often slanted version bent to fit a narrative. Both from conservative and liberal leaning media outlets.

    As for the people on the NYC, they're still there, they just are not required to participate in every single meeting.



    And if this is, as you claim, a ban just to keep Muslims out of the country, are you telling me that there are only 7 Muslim nations in the world?
    How can you sit with a straight face and cling to that when the facts are, there are other Muslim majority population nations that are not effected by this ban?


Saying that it isn't a Muslim ban because it doesn't affect all Muslims is like saying that the Holocaust wasn't killing Jews because they didn't kill all Jews. Which actually isn't that far from what this administration said.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee

    How can YOU sit there with a straight face and say that when a guy runs for President on a platform of imposing a Muslim ban, and then as soon as he becomes President he imposes a ban on travel from Muslim countries, and only Muslim countries, that it ISN'T a Muslim ban? And, if so, doesn't that mean he was lying when he made the campaign promise?

    Every administration puts out their version of the truth. The last 8 years we couldn't even get the administration to admit that terror attacks were indeed terror attacks. So spare me the "people like you who won't believe the truth when they hear it" crap.




Not using the words you think are most accurate--even if you're right--is not remotely close to actually lying. Yes, every Administration puts out their version of the truth. But it is one thing to put a spin on it, and another to outright lie.

Besides, when you say that they wouldn't call it terror--the right wing insisted not only that he call it terror, but that it didn't count if he did. Remember how the right all lost their shit because the moderator of the debate, when Romney said that Obama hadn't called it terror, pointed out that he actually did? So, yeah, if you're going to keep making points that turn out to be wrong, I think you're going to have to endure the "people like you won't believe the truth when you hear it" thing a little longer.

(edited by Peter The Hegemon on 5.2.17 2040)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 4.15
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Terror Attack in London
Next thread: A different perspective
Previous thread: So, two terror attacks in one day....
(8 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Aw, I loved Mr. Wizard. I always learned something from him and he always looked like he was so cool about everything. I think he really enjoyed being Mr. Wizard.
- pieman, Mr. Wizard - dead at 89 (2007)
The W - Current Events & Politics - The first ten days (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2017 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.212 seconds.