Nov 8, 2016 - The lesser of two evils?

[mjmaherjr]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

 

[beast of the east]

Take a single, important issue - vetting of immigrants from countries that have produced most radical terrorists:

1) Most people would agree that we don't want to restrict good and decent people from coming here form the countries affected.
2) Most people would agree that people coming from those countries must be vetted for ties to extremist groups, cells, or individuals
3) Most people would agree that we do not want people coming here who cannot be properly identified.
4) Most people would agree that the US should provide humanitarian assistance to those in nations besieged by ethnic and religious cleansing, and where groups like ISIS have seized control ... You would think that one side wants every Latino who crosses the border illegally to remain here.

I do have a couple of puzzling question with regard to my abridging your longer quote above. Let me start with the 9th circuit court of appeals opinion on the executive order on temp travel ban "that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration. The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President's national security conclusions" (statement by Trey Gowdy). With regard to your last sentence (above), well this court is saying that about illegals, but isn't that a serious breach of interpretation of constitutional law? But I guess the Supreme Court will set them straight but they have achieved their immediate objective.

Second, with respect to national and sub-national security, and akin to vetting people coming from other countries with possible, potential and real criminal/terror backgrounds (Latino, Arab, Asian, etc.) that may accentuate security concerns, isn't that very similar to extensively vetting citizens (as a result of the Brady Act) prior to purchasing firearms (often called by the very people who are vehemently anti-gun and whose main objective is banning guns) because of exactly same security concerns? Seems like a double standard to me, but would be happy to learn that I am wrong.

While there may be a small contingent who actually want to completely ban guns, it is not the majority's objective. Frankly, it is my opinion that this insinuation is a scare tactic used to preserve the fight against any/all regulation.

Here's the part of the argument I do understand in defense of legalized handguns: The people who get permits, who go through background checks, who have gun safes, and go to shooting ranges are not the same people shooting up cities like Chicago, holding up people at gunpoint on streets of New Orleans, engaged in gang violence or the drug trade. To that extent, all the legislation in the world will not stop that ridiculous violence unless you get the people off the streets who use guns in the commission of a crime for a very long time.

The reluctance to address that part of it on the side of the left invalidates their commitment to ending gun violence.

 

[JohnnyFan]

Take a single, important issue - vetting of immigrants from countries that have produced most radical terrorists:

1) Most people would agree that we don't want to restrict good and decent people from coming here form the countries affected.
2) Most people would agree that people coming from those countries must be vetted for ties to extremist groups, cells, or individuals
3) Most people would agree that we do not want people coming here who cannot be properly identified.
4) Most people would agree that the US should provide humanitarian assistance to those in nations besieged by ethnic and religious cleansing, and where groups like ISIS have seized control ... You would think that one side wants every Latino who crosses the border illegally to remain here.

I do have a couple of puzzling question with regard to my abridging your longer quote above. Let me start with the 9th circuit court of appeals opinion on the executive order on temp travel ban "that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration. The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President's national security conclusions" (statement by Trey Gowdy). With regard to your last sentence (above), well this court is saying that about illegals, but isn't that a serious breach of interpretation of constitutional law? But I guess the Supreme Court will set them straight but they have achieved their immediate objective.

Second, with respect to national and sub-national security, and akin to vetting people coming from other countries with possible, potential and real criminal/terror backgrounds (Latino, Arab, Asian, etc.) that may accentuate security concerns, isn't that very similar to extensively vetting citizens (as a result of the Brady Act) prior to purchasing firearms (often called by the very people who are vehemently anti-gun and whose main objective is banning guns) because of exactly same security concerns? Seems like a double standard to me, but would be happy to learn that I am wrong.

While there may be a small contingent who actually want to completely ban guns, it is not the majority's objective. Frankly, it is my opinion that this insinuation is a scare tactic used to preserve the fight against any/all regulation.

Here's the part of the argument I do understand in defense of legalized handguns: The people who get permits, who go through background checks, who have gun safes, and go to shooting ranges are not the same people shooting up cities like Chicago, holding up people at gunpoint on streets of New Orleans, engaged in gang violence or the drug trade. To that extent, all the legislation in the world will not stop that ridiculous violence unless you get the people off the streets who use guns in the commission of a crime for a very long time.

The reluctance to address that part of it on the side of the left invalidates their commitment to ending gun violence.

I am for stiff illegal gun penalties and realize democrats (especially those representing large cities) succumb to pressure on this issue. However, I don't think it is fair to say it "invalidates" their commitment. Think Newtown.

Beast, this is where I find one of your recent posts to be applicable. I would add these two additional items to those that you suggested we could all agree upon:

1. Prohibiting gun purchase to those diagnosed with certain mental illness.
2. Stiffer penalties for illegal gun activity (i.e. illegal sale, illegal possession, armed crime)

That said, nothing gets done because we are all held hostage by partisan politics.

 

[JohnnyFan]

By the way......

I know most participating in this thread are pro-Trump and currently resigned to give him a chance. That said, did anyone see today's press conference? I know folks have been looking for a change, but couldn't there be a slightly more sane person to lead conservative policy?

I find myself saying: "Dude...step up and pull it together". I know people like to blame the media, but he also steps on his own message creates is own turmoil.

 

[beast of the east]

Take a single, important issue - vetting of immigrants from countries that have produced most radical terrorists:

1) Most people would agree that we don't want to restrict good and decent people from coming here form the countries affected.
2) Most people would agree that people coming from those countries must be vetted for ties to extremist groups, cells, or individuals
3) Most people would agree that we do not want people coming here who cannot be properly identified.
4) Most people would agree that the US should provide humanitarian assistance to those in nations besieged by ethnic and religious cleansing, and where groups like ISIS have seized control ... You would think that one side wants every Latino who crosses the border illegally to remain here.

I do have a couple of puzzling question with regard to my abridging your longer quote above. Let me start with the 9th circuit court of appeals opinion on the executive order on temp travel ban "that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration. The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President's national security conclusions" (statement by Trey Gowdy). With regard to your last sentence (above), well this court is saying that about illegals, but isn't that a serious breach of interpretation of constitutional law? But I guess the Supreme Court will set them straight but they have achieved their immediate objective.

Second, with respect to national and sub-national security, and akin to vetting people coming from other countries with possible, potential and real criminal/terror backgrounds (Latino, Arab, Asian, etc.) that may accentuate security concerns, isn't that very similar to extensively vetting citizens (as a result of the Brady Act) prior to purchasing firearms (often called by the very people who are vehemently anti-gun and whose main objective is banning guns) because of exactly same security concerns? Seems like a double standard to me, but would be happy to learn that I am wrong.

While there may be a small contingent who actually want to completely ban guns, it is not the majority's objective. Frankly, it is my opinion that this insinuation is a scare tactic used to preserve the fight against any/all regulation.

Here's the part of the argument I do understand in defense of legalized handguns: The people who get permits, who go through background checks, who have gun safes, and go to shooting ranges are not the same people shooting up cities like Chicago, holding up people at gunpoint on streets of New Orleans, engaged in gang violence or the drug trade. To that extent, all the legislation in the world will not stop that ridiculous violence unless you get the people off the streets who use guns in the commission of a crime for a very long time.

The reluctance to address that part of it on the side of the left invalidates their commitment to ending gun violence.

I am for stiff illegal gun penalties and realize democrats (especially those representing large cities) succumb to pressure on this issue. However, I don't think it is fair to say it "invalidates" their commitment. Think Newtown.

Beast, this is where I find one of your recent posts to be applicable. I would add these two additional items to those that you suggested we could all agree upon:

1. Prohibiting gun purchase to those diagnosed with certain mental illness.
2. Stiffer penalties for illegal gun activity (i.e. illegal sale, illegal possession, armed crime)

That said, nothing gets done because we are all held hostage by partisan politics.

Agree with your last statement. Keep in mind that there are many Democrats and Republicans in pro gun states areterrified of the NRA lobby and will not move strongly for gun control. I've had some sidebar private conversations regarding your 2 suggestions: It 100% makes sense to prohibit gun sales to those with a diagnosed mental illness. However, where to draw the line is terribly difficult: Is clinical depression or anger management mental illnesses, for example. Additionally, very often those who commit atrocities and are classified mentally ill have no prior record of mental illness - David Berkowitz.

 

[beast of the east]

By the way......

I know most participating in this thread are pro-Trump and currently resigned to give him a chance. That said, did anyone see today's press conference? I know folks have been looking for a change, but couldn't there be a slightly more sane person to lead conservative policy?

I find myself saying: "Dude...step up and pull it together". I know people like to blame the media, but he also steps on his own message creates is own turmoil.

Not many here are pro-Trump, but are willing to give him a chance. Clinton's first 6 months were horrendous, and I don't think Reagan's were sterling either. Obama's 8 years were pretty lousy also, so I'd have agreed with his suggestions that he should have been given a third term just to see if experience would help him.

 

[monte]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

You happen to catch the movie about the Duke chick who was paying her tuition doing porn? A mildly entertaining flick that I stumbled upon by accident, and decided to watch since I'll watch pretty much anything porn or even porn related. Anyhow it painted a picture of the Duke boys as being a bunch of douches. Of course this was as seen through the eyes of porn star so I guess you have to consider the source. Don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, so I'll just say that it had a happy ending....or two.

 

[Andrew]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

You happen to catch the movie about the Duke chick who was paying her tuition doing porn? A mildly entertaining flick that I stumbled upon by accident, and decided to watch since I'll watch pretty much anything porn or even porn related. Anyhow it painted a picture of the Duke boys as being a bunch of douches. Of course this was as seen through the eyes of porn star so I guess you have to consider the source. Don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, so I'll just say that it had a happy ending....or two.

Finally a bipartisan topic - Porn at Duke.

 

[monte]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

You happen to catch the movie about the Duke chick who was paying her tuition doing porn? A mildly entertaining flick that I stumbled upon by accident, and decided to watch since I'll watch pretty much anything porn or even porn related. Anyhow it painted a picture of the Duke boys as being a bunch of douches. Of course this was as seen through the eyes of porn star so I guess you have to consider the source. Don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, so I'll just say that it had a happy ending....or two.

Finally a bipartisan topic - Porn at Duke.

It's my own little way of trying to bridge the politcal divide amongst our fan base.

 

[mjmaherjr]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

You happen to catch the movie about the Duke chick who was paying her tuition doing porn? A mildly entertaining flick that I stumbled upon by accident, and decided to watch since I'll watch pretty much anything porn or even porn related. Anyhow it painted a picture of the Duke boys as being a bunch of douches. Of course this was as seen through the eyes of porn star so I guess you have to consider the source. Don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, so I'll just say that it had a happy ending....or two.

Nah I didnt see it. Is it the actual porn flick or a netflix documenttary or something ?

 

[JohnnyFan]

By the way......

I know most participating in this thread are pro-Trump and currently resigned to give him a chance. That said, did anyone see today's press conference? I know folks have been looking for a change, but couldn't there be a slightly more sane person to lead conservative policy?

I find myself saying: "Dude...step up and pull it together". I know people like to blame the media, but he also steps on his own message creates is own turmoil.

Not many here are pro-Trump, but are willing to give him a chance. Clinton's first 6 months were horrendous, and I don't think Reagan's were sterling either. Obama's 8 years were pretty lousy also, so I'd have agreed with his suggestions that he should have been given a third term just to see if experience would help him.

I can understand it taking some time to get settled and to get one's feet underneath them. I am not sure anythinig truly prepares you to be president.

I am just saying, and today's press conference was a perfect example, the guy comes off as a nut (contradictory, defensive, insecure and proclaiming to be "the smartest", "the best" etc). Who talks like that? I get it, he's our president, but this guy sure is special.

 

[monte]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

You happen to catch the movie about the Duke chick who was paying her tuition doing porn? A mildly entertaining flick that I stumbled upon by accident, and decided to watch since I'll watch pretty much anything porn or even porn related. Anyhow it painted a picture of the Duke boys as being a bunch of douches. Of course this was as seen through the eyes of porn star so I guess you have to consider the source. Don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, so I'll just say that it had a happy ending....or two.

Nah I didnt see it. Is it the actual porn flick or a netflix documenttary or something ?

It was a made for TV movie starring(I use that word loosely) Judd Nelson as her manager. It was on one of Oprah's channels I think.

 

[JohnnyFan]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

You happen to catch the movie about the Duke chick who was paying her tuition doing porn? A mildly entertaining flick that I stumbled upon by accident, and decided to watch since I'll watch pretty much anything porn or even porn related. Anyhow it painted a picture of the Duke boys as being a bunch of douches. Of course this was as seen through the eyes of porn star so I guess you have to consider the source. Don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, so I'll just say that it had a happy ending....or two.

Nah I didnt see it. Is it the actual porn flick or a netflix documenttary or something ?

It was a made for TV movie starring(I use that word loosely) Judd Nelson as her manager. It was on one of Oprah's channels I think.

I feel like I just heard about this story recently. They crank these movies out quick these days! Nonetheless.....I am interested in seeing it.

 

[mjmaherjr]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

You happen to catch the movie about the Duke chick who was paying her tuition doing porn? A mildly entertaining flick that I stumbled upon by accident, and decided to watch since I'll watch pretty much anything porn or even porn related. Anyhow it painted a picture of the Duke boys as being a bunch of douches. Of course this was as seen through the eyes of porn star so I guess you have to consider the source. Don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, so I'll just say that it had a happy ending....or two.

Nah I didnt see it. Is it the actual porn flick or a netflix documenttary or something ?

It was a made for TV movie starring(I use that word loosely) Judd Nelson as her manager. It was on one of Oprah's channels I think.

I feel like I just heard about this story recently. They crank these movies out quick these days! Nonetheless.....I am interested in seeing it.

I'm going to have to watch this saturday morning before I start binge watching the netflix series the killing

 

[JohnnyFan]

I'll say this. From the first time I saw this Stephen Miller guy on talk shows right after the whole immigration executive order I didnt like the guy. Couldn't really put a finger on it other than me thinking he looked arrogant in the interviews.

Now I find out why my intuition is so good. He went to DUKE

You think that's his worst quality? LOL

Being from Duke pretty much Trumps everything else in my world of hatred. Pun intended

You happen to catch the movie about the Duke chick who was paying her tuition doing porn? A mildly entertaining flick that I stumbled upon by accident, and decided to watch since I'll watch pretty much anything porn or even porn related. Anyhow it painted a picture of the Duke boys as being a bunch of douches. Of course this was as seen through the eyes of porn star so I guess you have to consider the source. Don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, so I'll just say that it had a happy ending....or two.

Nah I didnt see it. Is it the actual porn flick or a netflix documenttary or something ?

It was a made for TV movie starring(I use that word loosely) Judd Nelson as her manager. It was on one of Oprah's channels I think.

I feel like I just heard about this story recently. They crank these movies out quick these days! Nonetheless.....I am interested in seeing it.

 

[Too_Funny]

And now for something different (a la Monty Python) ... A few courageous British Muslims trying to show the folly of the ISIS phenomenon in a society that is producing increasing number of recruits ... The reason they are courageous should be self-evident, their comedy may not be

 

[mjmaherjr]

And now for something different (a la Monty Python) ... A few courageous British Muslims trying to show the folly of the ISIS phenomenon in a society that is producing increasing number of recruits ... The reason they are courageous should be self-evident, their comedy may not be

that was funny

 

[plandome4]

Politics aside...Pro or Con. This asshat is a embarrassment. I know some what change but at what cost. He's a nut!

 

[Too_Funny]

Take a single, important issue - vetting of immigrants from countries that have produced most radical terrorists:

1) Most people would agree that we don't want to restrict good and decent people from coming here form the countries affected.
2) Most people would agree that people coming from those countries must be vetted for ties to extremist groups, cells, or individuals
3) Most people would agree that we do not want people coming here who cannot be properly identified.
4) Most people would agree that the US should provide humanitarian assistance to those in nations besieged by ethnic and religious cleansing, and where groups like ISIS have seized control ... You would think that one side wants every Latino who crosses the border illegally to remain here.

I do have a couple of puzzling question with regard to my abridging your longer quote above. Let me start with the 9th circuit court of appeals opinion on the executive order on temp travel ban "that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration. The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President's national security conclusions" (statement by Trey Gowdy). With regard to your last sentence (above), well this court is saying that about illegals, but isn't that a serious breach of interpretation of constitutional law? But I guess the Supreme Court will set them straight but they have achieved their immediate objective.

Second, with respect to national and sub-national security, and akin to vetting people coming from other countries with possible, potential and real criminal/terror backgrounds (Latino, Arab, Asian, etc.) that may accentuate security concerns, isn't that very similar to extensively vetting citizens (as a result of the Brady Act) prior to purchasing firearms (often called by the very people who are vehemently anti-gun and whose main objective is banning guns) because of exactly same security concerns? Seems like a double standard to me, but would be happy to learn that I am wrong.

While there may be a small contingent who actually want to completely ban guns, it is not the majority's objective. Frankly, it is my opinion that this insinuation is a scare tactic used to preserve the fight against any/all regulation.

Here's the part of the argument I do understand in defense of legalized handguns: The people who get permits, who go through background checks, who have gun safes, and go to shooting ranges are not the same people shooting up cities like Chicago, holding up people at gunpoint on streets of New Orleans, engaged in gang violence or the drug trade. To that extent, all the legislation in the world will not stop that ridiculous violence unless you get the people off the streets who use guns in the commission of a crime for a very long time.

The reluctance to address that part of it on the side of the left invalidates their commitment to ending gun violence.

I am for stiff illegal gun penalties and realize democrats (especially those representing large cities) succumb to pressure on this issue. However, I don't think it is fair to say it "invalidates" their commitment. Think Newtown.

Beast, this is where I find one of your recent posts to be applicable. I would add these two additional items to those that you suggested we could all agree upon:

1. Prohibiting gun purchase to those diagnosed with certain mental illness.
2. Stiffer penalties for illegal gun activity (i.e. illegal sale, illegal possession, armed crime)

That said, nothing gets done because we are all held hostage by partisan politics.

Agree with your last statement. Keep in mind that there are many Democrats and Republicans in pro gun states areterrified of the NRA lobby and will not move strongly for gun control. I've had some sidebar private conversations regarding your 2 suggestions: It 100% makes sense to prohibit gun sales to those with a diagnosed mental illness. However, where to draw the line is terribly difficult: Is clinical depression or anger management mental illnesses, for example. Additionally, very often those who commit atrocities and are classified mentally ill have no prior record of mental illness - David Berkowitz.

My apologies, maybe my point did not come across clearly. What I am asking is - for the sake of national security and safety of its citizenry - internally the overwhelming emphasis for extreme vetting is completely acceptable particularly on the left (because as they rightly say what if there are a bunch of nutters out there), but the call for extreme vetting for people coming from outside (countries already identified by the previous administration not capable of setting up a robust system) is somehow unethical and un-american by the same people?

 

[Too_Funny]

It is important because in the span of one week, the extremists are ramping up their slaughter in the country of my origin... and while Pakistan has much, much better systems in place, the 7 others Im afraid may not even have systems. But people who carry out these acts, just want to see the world burn ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38994318