Nov 8, 2016 - The lesser of two evils?

[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.

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.

Yeah, I vaguely remember it being in the news as well. The girl went on the talk show circuits, so it was somewhat publicized, as much as I'm sure that Duke just wished it went away.

 

[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.

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

It's called "From straight A's to XXX". Great title haha.

 

[Too_Funny]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

 

[Spocky Ramone]

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.

Point 1 above is reasonable, until you realize the government will subsequently expand this list of "mental illnesses" to essentially include anything and everything.

 

[mjmaherjr]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

Holy crap. Wow. I only knew 1 of those. I had no idea

 

[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.

Point 1 above is reasonable, until you realize the government will subsequently expand this list of "mental illnesses" to essentially include anything and everything.

In Pakistan, what is the penalty for being found to be part of a terror cell?

 

[Spocky Ramone]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

This comment would be amusing if this tragedy wasn't so horrific - 1 week!

 

[ctstorm]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

Holy crap. Wow. I only knew 1 of those. I had no idea

This is incredible. We tend. naturally, to focus on the US and Europe and lose sight of the global scope of these atrocities.

 

[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.

Point 1 above is reasonable, until you realize the government will subsequently expand this list of "mental illnesses" to essentially include anything and everything.

In Pakistan, what is the penalty for being found to be part of a terror cell?

Its a "parliamentary" system but we have capital punishment so if found guilty of murder then death by hanging or lesser is lashing or prison and so on down the line. Some people would prefer to be hung than lashed because that is a way more painful death (hard to survive if high number of lashes).

 

[Too_Funny]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

Holy crap. Wow. I only knew 1 of those. I had no idea

This is incredible. We tend. naturally, to focus on the US and Europe and lose sight of the global scope of these atrocities.

I guess my point is muslims are by numbers the biggest victims of a hateful, non muslim ideology ... you may be surprised that inside most muslims agree with Trump. This monster needs to be eliminated.

 

[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.

Point 1 above is reasonable, until you realize the government will subsequently expand this list of "mental illnesses" to essentially include anything and everything.

In Pakistan, what is the penalty for being found to be part of a terror cell?

Its a "parliamentary" system but we have capital punishment so if found guilty of murder then death by hanging or lesser is lashing or prison and so on down the line. Some people would prefer to be hung than lashed because that is a way more painful death (hard to survive if high number of lashes).

In the Christian gospels, during the passion of Christ, Pilate ordered him to be scourged. "Scourged" has almost a sanitized connotation, until I saw the Mel Gibson movie and saw what the devices were that Roman guards actually used in that period. Essentially they were whips with metal balls with raised spikes on them designed to grab flesh and tear it. It appeared to be excruciating beyond comprehension.

I was wondering if in Pakistan the punishment for even being associated with terrorism is death. Here we just released known terror combatants from Guantanamo and back to the battlefield.

I remember a news item that basically said in the 12 months preceding 9-11 there were something in the order of 400 terror attacks world wide. Of course, as sheltered Americans, we didn't realize that the campaign of terror was already waging, and 9-11 wasn't an isolated act of violence.

 

[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.

Point 1 above is reasonable, until you realize the government will subsequently expand this list of "mental illnesses" to essentially include anything and everything.

In Pakistan, what is the penalty for being found to be part of a terror cell?

Its a "parliamentary" system but we have capital punishment so if found guilty of murder then death by hanging or lesser is lashing or prison and so on down the line. Some people would prefer to be hung than lashed because that is a way more painful death (hard to survive if high number of lashes).

In the Christian gospels, during the passion of Christ, Pilate ordered him to be scourged. "Scourged" has almost a sanitized connotation, until I saw the Mel Gibson movie and saw what the devices were that Roman guards actually used in that period. Essentially they were whips with metal balls with raised spikes on them designed to grab flesh and tear it. It appeared to be excruciating beyond comprehension.

I was wondering if in Pakistan the punishment for even being associated with terrorism is death. Here we just released known terror combatants from Guantanamo and back to the battlefield.

I remember a news item that basically said in the 12 months preceding 9-11 there were something in the order of 400 terror attacks world wide. Of course, as sheltered Americans, we didn't realize that the campaign of terror was already waging, and 9-11 wasn't an isolated act of violence.

You have the instruments in the effect they have on human flesh but try to even fathom the mindset that can get to the point of blowing themselves up ... think of trying to reason with that mindset. Think of what can happen even if 10 unvetted get through. Suicide is the most heinous of sins in Islam, so we are talking about people almost unrepairable... some do rehabilitate but i see nothing wrong with extreme vetting. Lucky for US, while internally the authorities struggle, the external vetting is sound. For the 7 countries one could hardly fathom it to be. But that as you say sheltered, naive outcry, did my head in. The good ones do understand the wait ...

 

[beast of the east]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

Holy crap. Wow. I only knew 1 of those. I had no idea

This is incredible. We tend. naturally, to focus on the US and Europe and lose sight of the global scope of these atrocities.

I guess my point is muslims are by numbers the biggest victims of a hateful, non muslim ideology ... you may be surprised that inside most muslims agree with Trump. This monster needs to be eliminated.

Not surprised at all. Most Americans are unaware of the violence that occurs between Sunni's (80%) and Shiites (20%), and different ethnic groups contained within. Some suggested post war that Iraq should have been split into 3 states, separating Sunni's Shiites and Kurds.

Nonetheless radical terrorists will kill their own kind, and their thirst for blood, at least to me, is more based on empowerment than religion

 

[mjmaherjr]

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.

Point 1 above is reasonable, until you realize the government will subsequently expand this list of "mental illnesses" to essentially include anything and everything.

In Pakistan, what is the penalty for being found to be part of a terror cell?

Its a "parliamentary" system but we have capital punishment so if found guilty of murder then death by hanging or lesser is lashing or prison and so on down the line. Some people would prefer to be hung than lashed because that is a way more painful death (hard to survive if high number of lashes).

In the Christian gospels, during the passion of Christ, Pilate ordered him to be scourged. "Scourged" has almost a sanitized connotation, until I saw the Mel Gibson movie and saw what the devices were that Roman guards actually used in that period. Essentially they were whips with metal balls with raised spikes on them designed to grab flesh and tear it. It appeared to be excruciating beyond comprehension.

I was wondering if in Pakistan the punishment for even being associated with terrorism is death. Here we just released known terror combatants from Guantanamo and back to the battlefield.

I remember a news item that basically said in the 12 months preceding 9-11 there were something in the order of 400 terror attacks world wide. Of course, as sheltered Americans, we didn't realize that the campaign of terror was already waging, and 9-11 wasn't an isolated act of violence.

You have the instruments in the effect they have on human flesh but try to even fathom the mindset that can get to the point of blowing themselves up ... think of trying to reason with that mindset. Think of what can happen even if 10 unvetted get through. Suicide is the most heinous of sins in Islam, so we are talking about people almost unrepairable... some do rehabilitate but i see nothing wrong with extreme vetting. Lucky for US, while internally the authorities struggle, the external vetting is sound. For the 7 countries one could hardly fathom it to be. But that as you say sheltered, naive outcry, did my head in. The good ones do understand the wait ...

Hey quick question because it's really enjoyable reading your insight into this stuff in the middle east. What is your opinion on Saudi Arabia ? The reason I ask is a few years ago when my fiancée and I were in Jordan the driver we were using was a private tutor for the Saudi Royal Family ( not sure which part of the family ) and him and his wife actually lived on the grounds of one of the palaces. He had just moved back to Jordan ( a lot of his kids actually moved to the US and all extremely well educated ) but he was saying that in Saudi Arabia things were getting really bad as far as some religious police or something like that and if his wife was at the mall and if she wasn't wearing the right amount of clothes that these religious police ( different from regular police ) could actually whip her or something like that. He said it was getting really bad there so he moved him and his wife back to Jordan

 

[Too_Funny]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

Holy crap. Wow. I only knew 1 of those. I had no idea

This is incredible. We tend. naturally, to focus on the US and Europe and lose sight of the global scope of these atrocities.

I guess my point is muslims are by numbers the biggest victims of a hateful, non muslim ideology ... you may be surprised that inside most muslims agree with Trump. This monster needs to be eliminated.

Not surprised at all. Most Americans are unaware of the violence that occurs between Sunni's (80%) and Shiites (20%), and different ethnic groups contained within. Some suggested post war that Iraq should have been split into 3 states, separating Sunni's Shiites and Kurds.

Nonetheless radical terrorists will kill their own kind, and their thirst for blood, at least to me, is more based on empowerment than religion

You understanding is remarkably profound. Its about empowerment and a twisted identity. Its all political. And those often random drone strikes by you know who further exacerbate the recruitment process. They stop seeing the individual in US, and see one homogenous enemy. I remember meeting people in remote areas, and they were surprised to hear me say basic things like we all have same desires and wants ... a couple of more potatoes on the plate, feeling of being loved and secure. They would always ask why do they hate us, which i found deep.

The communication between common people on both sides is missing, which is filled by hateful propaganda.

Anyhow, ive been a st johns fan since 1982. Didnt go there but heard a RUN DMC rap and got interested. I believe it was Mullins first year. Ive always enjoyed good comraderie with other fans throughout. Most memorable was the hardy senior year and buzzer beating shot against Pitt. Our section was one that moment.

 

[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.

Point 1 above is reasonable, until you realize the government will subsequently expand this list of "mental illnesses" to essentially include anything and everything.

In Pakistan, what is the penalty for being found to be part of a terror cell?

Its a "parliamentary" system but we have capital punishment so if found guilty of murder then death by hanging or lesser is lashing or prison and so on down the line. Some people would prefer to be hung than lashed because that is a way more painful death (hard to survive if high number of lashes).

In the Christian gospels, during the passion of Christ, Pilate ordered him to be scourged. "Scourged" has almost a sanitized connotation, until I saw the Mel Gibson movie and saw what the devices were that Roman guards actually used in that period. Essentially they were whips with metal balls with raised spikes on them designed to grab flesh and tear it. It appeared to be excruciating beyond comprehension.

I was wondering if in Pakistan the punishment for even being associated with terrorism is death. Here we just released known terror combatants from Guantanamo and back to the battlefield.

I remember a news item that basically said in the 12 months preceding 9-11 there were something in the order of 400 terror attacks world wide. Of course, as sheltered Americans, we didn't realize that the campaign of terror was already waging, and 9-11 wasn't an isolated act of violence.

You have the instruments in the effect they have on human flesh but try to even fathom the mindset that can get to the point of blowing themselves up ... think of trying to reason with that mindset. Think of what can happen even if 10 unvetted get through. Suicide is the most heinous of sins in Islam, so we are talking about people almost unrepairable... some do rehabilitate but i see nothing wrong with extreme vetting. Lucky for US, while internally the authorities struggle, the external vetting is sound. For the 7 countries one could hardly fathom it to be. But that as you say sheltered, naive outcry, did my head in. The good ones do understand the wait ...

Hey quick question because it's really enjoyable reading your insight into this stuff in the middle east. What is your opinion on Saudi Arabia ? The reason I ask is a few years ago when my fiancée and I were in Jordan the driver we were using was a private tutor for the Saudi Royal Family ( not sure which part of the family ) and him and his wife actually lived on the grounds of one of the palaces. He had just moved back to Jordan ( a lot of his kids actually moved to the US and all extremely well educated ) but he was saying that in Saudi Arabia things were getting really bad as far as some religious police or something like that and if his wife was at the mall and if she wasn't wearing the right amount of clothes that these religious police ( different from regular police ) could actually whip her or something like that. He said it was getting really bad there so he moved him and his wife back to Jordan

Saudi Arabia is bar none the worst country on this planet. The biggest suppliers of weapons to ISIS. its basically a family business that exploits radicalism and is a staunch enemy of of its people and Iran. You might find it odd but i find Iran is a way better country across every field. My father was appointed to Iran, and i visited in the late 1990s when the liberal Khatemi was in charge. Women are highly literate above 90%, major work force participants, and while external garb wearing because of religious leaders gives a different impression when you see them at their homes they are dressed pretty western, and are hot

 

[beast of the east]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

Holy crap. Wow. I only knew 1 of those. I had no idea

This is incredible. We tend. naturally, to focus on the US and Europe and lose sight of the global scope of these atrocities.

I guess my point is muslims are by numbers the biggest victims of a hateful, non muslim ideology ... you may be surprised that inside most muslims agree with Trump. This monster needs to be eliminated.

Not surprised at all. Most Americans are unaware of the violence that occurs between Sunni's (80%) and Shiites (20%), and different ethnic groups contained within. Some suggested post war that Iraq should have been split into 3 states, separating Sunni's Shiites and Kurds.

Nonetheless radical terrorists will kill their own kind, and their thirst for blood, at least to me, is more based on empowerment than religion

You understanding is remarkably profound. Its about empowerment and a twisted identity. Its all political. And those often random drone strikes by you know who further exacerbate the recruitment process. They stop seeing the individual in US, and see one homogenous enemy. I remember meeting people in remote areas, and they were surprised to hear me say basic things like we all have same desires and wants ... a couple of more potatoes on the plate, feeling of being loved and secure. They would always ask why do they hate us, which i found deep.

The communication between common people on both sides is missing, which is filled by hateful propaganda.

Anyhow, ive been a st johns fan since 1982. Didnt go there but heard a RUN DMC rap and got interested. I believe it was Mullins first year. Ive always enjoyed good comraderie with other fans throughout. Most memorable was the hardy senior year and buzzer beating shot against Pitt. Our section was one that moment.

Not having anything to do with the fact that it was Obama who accelerated drone strikes, but there have been just too many well publicized civilian mortalities for my comfort when using drones. While collateral damage is one of the unfortunate realities of war, to me at least the those unfortunate events occur, they are perpetrated accidentally by boots on the ground engaged in dangerous duty. A drone attack that kills civilians puts the assailant at no risk whatsoever, and makes the US appear callously removed but yet an agent of death.

 

[mjmaherjr]

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.

Point 1 above is reasonable, until you realize the government will subsequently expand this list of "mental illnesses" to essentially include anything and everything.

In Pakistan, what is the penalty for being found to be part of a terror cell?

Its a "parliamentary" system but we have capital punishment so if found guilty of murder then death by hanging or lesser is lashing or prison and so on down the line. Some people would prefer to be hung than lashed because that is a way more painful death (hard to survive if high number of lashes).

In the Christian gospels, during the passion of Christ, Pilate ordered him to be scourged. "Scourged" has almost a sanitized connotation, until I saw the Mel Gibson movie and saw what the devices were that Roman guards actually used in that period. Essentially they were whips with metal balls with raised spikes on them designed to grab flesh and tear it. It appeared to be excruciating beyond comprehension.

I was wondering if in Pakistan the punishment for even being associated with terrorism is death. Here we just released known terror combatants from Guantanamo and back to the battlefield.

I remember a news item that basically said in the 12 months preceding 9-11 there were something in the order of 400 terror attacks world wide. Of course, as sheltered Americans, we didn't realize that the campaign of terror was already waging, and 9-11 wasn't an isolated act of violence.

You have the instruments in the effect they have on human flesh but try to even fathom the mindset that can get to the point of blowing themselves up ... think of trying to reason with that mindset. Think of what can happen even if 10 unvetted get through. Suicide is the most heinous of sins in Islam, so we are talking about people almost unrepairable... some do rehabilitate but i see nothing wrong with extreme vetting. Lucky for US, while internally the authorities struggle, the external vetting is sound. For the 7 countries one could hardly fathom it to be. But that as you say sheltered, naive outcry, did my head in. The good ones do understand the wait ...

Hey quick question because it's really enjoyable reading your insight into this stuff in the middle east. What is your opinion on Saudi Arabia ? The reason I ask is a few years ago when my fiancée and I were in Jordan the driver we were using was a private tutor for the Saudi Royal Family ( not sure which part of the family ) and him and his wife actually lived on the grounds of one of the palaces. He had just moved back to Jordan ( a lot of his kids actually moved to the US and all extremely well educated ) but he was saying that in Saudi Arabia things were getting really bad as far as some religious police or something like that and if his wife was at the mall and if she wasn't wearing the right amount of clothes that these religious police ( different from regular police ) could actually whip her or something like that. He said it was getting really bad there so he moved him and his wife back to Jordan

Saudi Arabia is bar none the worst country on this planet. The biggest suppliers of weapons to ISIS. its basically a family business that exploits radicalism and is a staunch enemy of of its people and Iran. You might find it odd but i find Iran is a way better country across every field. My father was appointed to Iran, and i visited in the late 1990s when the liberal Khatemi was in charge. Women are highly literate above 90%, major work force participants, and while external garb wearing because of religious leaders gives a different impression when you see them at their homes they are dressed pretty western, and are hot

Now the extremely hot women part is very helpful in me forming my global views GREAT INFO !!!!

 

[Too_Funny]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

Holy crap. Wow. I only knew 1 of those. I had no idea

This is incredible. We tend. naturally, to focus on the US and Europe and lose sight of the global scope of these atrocities.

I guess my point is muslims are by numbers the biggest victims of a hateful, non muslim ideology ... you may be surprised that inside most muslims agree with Trump. This monster needs to be eliminated.

Not surprised at all. Most Americans are unaware of the violence that occurs between Sunni's (80%) and Shiites (20%), and different ethnic groups contained within. Some suggested post war that Iraq should have been split into 3 states, separating Sunni's Shiites and Kurds.

Nonetheless radical terrorists will kill their own kind, and their thirst for blood, at least to me, is more based on empowerment than religion

You understanding is remarkably profound. Its about empowerment and a twisted identity. Its all political. And those often random drone strikes by you know who further exacerbate the recruitment process. They stop seeing the individual in US, and see one homogenous enemy. I remember meeting people in remote areas, and they were surprised to hear me say basic things like we all have same desires and wants ... a couple of more potatoes on the plate, feeling of being loved and secure. They would always ask why do they hate us, which i found deep.

The communication between common people on both sides is missing, which is filled by hateful propaganda.

Anyhow, ive been a st johns fan since 1982. Didnt go there but heard a RUN DMC rap and got interested. I believe it was Mullins first year. Ive always enjoyed good comraderie with other fans throughout. Most memorable was the hardy senior year and buzzer beating shot against Pitt. Our section was one that moment.

Not having anything to do with the fact that it was Obama who accelerated drone strikes, but there have been just too many well publicized civilian mortalities for my comfort when using drones. While collateral damage is one of the unfortunate realities of war, to me at least the those unfortunate events occur, they are perpetrated accidentally by boots on the ground engaged in dangerous duty. A drone attack that kills civilians puts the assailant at no risk whatsoever, and makes the US appear callously removed but yet an agent of death.

True. But i was hearing about some good work by soldiers on the ground, and slowly but surely winning people over. Things like helping to rebuild houses, water supply, power, schools. But i guess like in Iraq the pull out was ill timed. I guess the drone policy replaced boots on the ground?

 

[beast of the east]

[attachment]16806799_10154777230205358_7315617506827479310_n.jpg[/attachment]

Terrorist 101 - Pakistani Police 0

At least St. Johns held out better and didnt get shut out ...

Holy crap. Wow. I only knew 1 of those. I had no idea

This is incredible. We tend. naturally, to focus on the US and Europe and lose sight of the global scope of these atrocities.

I guess my point is muslims are by numbers the biggest victims of a hateful, non muslim ideology ... you may be surprised that inside most muslims agree with Trump. This monster needs to be eliminated.

Not surprised at all. Most Americans are unaware of the violence that occurs between Sunni's (80%) and Shiites (20%), and different ethnic groups contained within. Some suggested post war that Iraq should have been split into 3 states, separating Sunni's Shiites and Kurds.

Nonetheless radical terrorists will kill their own kind, and their thirst for blood, at least to me, is more based on empowerment than religion

You understanding is remarkably profound. Its about empowerment and a twisted identity. Its all political. And those often random drone strikes by you know who further exacerbate the recruitment process. They stop seeing the individual in US, and see one homogenous enemy. I remember meeting people in remote areas, and they were surprised to hear me say basic things like we all have same desires and wants ... a couple of more potatoes on the plate, feeling of being loved and secure. They would always ask why do they hate us, which i found deep.

The communication between common people on both sides is missing, which is filled by hateful propaganda.

Anyhow, ive been a st johns fan since 1982. Didnt go there but heard a RUN DMC rap and got interested. I believe it was Mullins first year. Ive always enjoyed good comraderie with other fans throughout. Most memorable was the hardy senior year and buzzer beating shot against Pitt. Our section was one that moment.

Not having anything to do with the fact that it was Obama who accelerated drone strikes, but there have been just too many well publicized civilian mortalities for my comfort when using drones. While collateral damage is one of the unfortunate realities of war, to me at least the those unfortunate events occur, they are perpetrated accidentally by boots on the ground engaged in dangerous duty. A drone attack that kills civilians puts the assailant at no risk whatsoever, and makes the US appear callously removed but yet an agent of death.

True. But i was hearing about some good work by soldiers on the ground, and slowly but surely winning people over. Things like helping to rebuild houses, water supply, power, schools. But i guess like in Iraq the pull out was ill timed. I guess the drone policy replaced boots on the ground?

In my position I get to travel a lot domestically and often meet servicemen. To a person, the typically reply when thanked for their service in combat that they did the job they were sent there for, and they usually offered that Iraqis overwhelmingly were appreciative of their efforts.

One of my coworkers did a few combat tours in the middle east over a 15 year career. Like most servicemen, he doesn't express political opinions, but does admit that to take Ramadi was a hellfight with many casualties against a relentless enemy. It was disappointing and demoralizing to him how easily we gave all of those gains back to the terrorists who took over after our premature departure, considering the huge price we paid to secure that city