Plus ça change...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

This is disturbing as hell. Nice find, Oly!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Unfortunately, there are too few in the GOP to call it what it is, but there are a few with a spine:

 

"He is a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn't represent my party. He does not represent the values that the men and women in uniform are fighting for... He is putting our soldiers and diplomats at risk. He is empowering the enemy...Tell Donald Trump to go to hell."

 

—

Sen. Lindsey Graham

 

“At the end of the day, Barack Obama has turned out to be a completely incompetent commander-in-chief. He doesn't listen to sound military advice. Leaving Iraq too soon led to the rise of ISIL, and John Kerry, his secretary of state, is a completely delusional man,”

 

-- Sen. Lindsey Graham

[olyclimber]

Damn...I wonder if Senator Graham has anything nice to say about anyone?

[olyclimber]

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Who's ass is he puckering up to kiss?

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]FMqADdsVmwQ

[ivan]

Hitler was quite a bit brighter than Trump.

 

The GOP has no one to blame but themselves for the rise of Trump - they birthed this creature by slowly bringing up the heat and rhetoric against public institutions, minorities, women, and immigrants for some time now, conducting a rather cynical appeal to the base of slowly running out old, angry, white voters.

 

As far as the Syrian refugees - really? These are folks who are fleeing the terrorists. While the EU has less border control and has to depend on entry countries vetting these folks, and Greece is just overwhelmed, here in the US we have control of the process. But if the GOP wants to tighten things up a bit they could prohibit guns to folks on the No-Fly list to start. But alas, that doesn't fit the narrative.

agreed.

 

funny, just finished a book today that was written 15 years ago - in it a critic of the army whined something to the effect that "american politics have gotten so stupid and commericial - pretty soon the race is going to pit donald trump vs dolly parton" - guess the guy was half right at least?

[ivan]

 

 

Unfortunately, there are too few in the GOP to call it what it is, but there are a few with a spine:

 

"He is a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn't represent my party. He does not represent the values that the men and women in uniform are fighting for... He is putting our soldiers and diplomats at risk. He is empowering the enemy...Tell Donald Trump to go to hell."

 

—

Sen. Lindsey Graham

 

“At the end of the day, Barack Obama has turned out to be a completely incompetent commander-in-chief. He doesn't listen to sound military advice. Leaving Iraq too soon led to the rise of ISIL, and John Kerry, his secretary of state, is a completely delusional man,”

 

-- Sen. Lindsey Graham

yup, if only we could get the military to start calling all the shots, everything would get waaaay better, 'cuz they've never been wrong 'bout nothing!

 

keeping shit to shoe-level is about the best you can ask for any president i reckon - obama's done that at least, though i've no doubt there's them 'round here who'd disagree.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

yup, if only we could get the military to start calling all the shots, everything would get waaaay better, 'cuz they've never been wrong 'bout nothing!

 

Ummm, that was not the point. The point is Graham is a politician vying for his territory to mark. Everything a politician says is to increase his position at the expense of an adversary. The GOP is not happy about Trump - he's too much of a loose cannon and wild card and he does not give a fuck - as he has said repeatedly.

 

Graham unloaded on Trump? BFD. Graham called him a bunch of names? Again, BFD. In one of the MANY rounds of Trump saying something non-PC and getting roasted in the public circus that is media and politics (I believe it was the bleeding comment), he actually said he EXPECTS his opponents to do and say exactly what they did, and in this case, Graham is doing and saying. This guy is no idiot - everything he says is calculated and his reaction to criticism is likewise premeditated.

 

 

 

 

[ivan]

kinda like isis in that way really - his intention is to spread madness and insanity - they should do a video together or team up like superman n' friends

[glassgowkiss]

Why KKK is supporting Trump is beyond me.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

kinda like isis in that way really - his intention is to spread madness and insanity - they should do a video together or team up like superman n' friends

 

A good businessman sells what his customer wants to buy.

 

Madness and insanity is more in line with Bernie IMO

[Choada_Boy]

What are we arguing about? Oh yeah: Freedom!!!

 

There was a story on the radio about Trump supporters and how there was essentially nothing he could say or do that would cause them to not support him. That's awesome. This is the guy that made allusions to fucking his own daughter. It's nice to know that I live in a country full of rednecks who don't care about the incest taboo.

 

Trump is the Republicunt front runner. Hold your head high, Ku Klux Klownpuncher! Give your one vote to the muslim hating daughter fucker. Very Christian!

[ivan]

i don't want to bash the donald too much - him getting the republican nomination is probably the best chance of keeping at least a nominal liberal in the big house, no?

[CWC01]

The ACLU has been arguing for quite some time that the No Fly List represents a violation of Due Process. The current administration just recommended we use the No Fly List to deny American citizens their second amendment rights. Recap: violate due process to disarm citizens for their beliefs. Fascism. From the left unsurprisingly.

i can't speak for the ACLU so perhaps the resident Hairy Hermit can weigh in

 

i suspect them nice fellers at the 'U though aren't per se opposed to the concept of a no-fly list so much as the manner in which said list is compiled and kept and challengeable - i imagine to a good extent too that you're arguing just to argue - i doubt you'd want a guy the fbi has monitored hanging out on isis-websites and posting repeatedly on social media about the awesomeness of that organization to be able to either board a plane or buy an ar-15 ('specially when folks up-thread were arguing said people should be executed w/o even a trial?)

 

maybe it's just a word game, but you're not being "dis-armed" in theory here, you're being "denied more arms than you had already"

 

 

No, I'm in favor of Due Process. How a person gets on the No Fly List is exactly the point if you're going to use it to remove constitutional rights. Claiming terrorism is the justification for removing rights is a deflection from the real issue which is domestic and national security. The breakdown was simply within how we admit immigrants and how we identify and monitor domestic and international threats. It's just convenient to try to make it a plank political issue otherwise the administration has to admit it failed at doing one of it's primary jobs.

 

Here it is argued in congress, I know icky Republican but you get the point.

 

 

[CWC01]

i don't want to bash the donald too much - him getting the republican nomination is probably the best chance of keeping at least a nominal liberal in the big house, no?

 

Keeping terrorism and national security out of the news is probably the best way for Democrats to stay in the Whitehouse. When terrorism comes up we start to focus on how Obama and Clinton got people killed and then lied about it to congress. And that pesky FBI investigation.

 

Know what would be interesting? If those guns Obama marched across the Mexican border started showing up in theater.

 

[olyclimber]

http://i.imgur.com/wun8rpY.gifv

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i don't want to bash the donald too much - him getting the republican nomination is probably the best chance of keeping at least a nominal liberal in the big house, no?

 

Who knows. Kind of a risky gambit, don't you think? Best way to lose is for the R's to pick a "safe bet" - like Romney was. Trump may go independent though - I can't see him getting the nomination at the convention. Then the D's win for sure. Please make sure it's not Bernie!

 

 

[Jim]

Please, please, please let it be the Donald. I'd have to get the extra big popcorn to watch that GOP meltdown. Venturing a guess I'd say his freak show doesn't have the staying power through the traditional vetting process - but will his ego allow him NOT to enter the race as an independent?

[Jim]

 

No, I'm in favor of Due Process. How a person gets on the No Fly List is exactly the point if you're going to use it to remove constitutional rights. Claiming terrorism is the justification for removing rights is a deflection from the real issue which is domestic and national security. The breakdown was simply within how we admit immigrants and how we identify and monitor domestic and international threats. It's just convenient to try to make it a plank political issue otherwise the administration has to admit it failed at doing one of it's primary jobs.

 

 

You can't get a gun if you are a convicted felon, have a mental health history, have a domestic disturbance restriction order, and any number of other parameters. The second amendment, as SCOTUS has outline and just last week upheld by refusing to review a gun restriction law, is not universal. If Congress votes in a law that says if your on the No Fly list -- it IS just that simple. The logic that you are unsafe enough to jump on a SW flight to Vegas but ok to pickup the latest semi-automatic with a few hundred rounds of ammo is, well, astonishing.

[ivan]

 

No, I'm in favor of Due Process. How a person gets on the No Fly List is exactly the point if you're going to use it to remove constitutional rights. Claiming terrorism is the justification for removing rights is a deflection from the real issue which is domestic and national security. The breakdown was simply within how we admit immigrants and how we identify and monitor domestic and international threats. It's just convenient to try to make it a plank political issue otherwise the administration has to admit it failed at doing one of it's primary jobs.

 

 

You can't get a gun if you are a convicted felon, have a mental health history, have a domestic disturbance restriction order, and any number of other parameters. The second amendment, as SCOTUS has outline and just last week upheld by refusing to review a gun restriction law, is not universal. If Congress votes in a law that says if your on the No Fly list -- it IS just that simple. The logic that you are unsafe enough to jump on a SW flight to Vegas but ok to pickup the latest semi-automatic with a few hundred rounds of ammo is, well, astonishing.

it sounds like ya'll are in something like agreement - folks shouldn't be able to buy a gun if they're not trusted to fly either, but the process of deciding who's on that list needs to be just (and lord knows there must be many devils hiding in all those details)

 

the constitutional scholars will no doubt remind us that you have an expressly granted right to bear arms but no such specific right to fly, thus the later is far easier to tamper w/ than the former

[ivan]

Who knows. Kind of a risky gambit, don't you think? Best way to lose is for the R's to pick a "safe bet" - like Romney was. Trump may go independent though - I can't see him getting the nomination at the convention. Then the D's win for sure. Please make sure it's not Bernie!

 

i agree w/ the first statement but not the second. The past century of presidential elections indicates whoever the republicans pick has a much greater than 50/50 shot of winning. romney would have been a shoe-in if he'd run in 2016 against clinton (and i woulda loved to have seen the dog crate on top of the white house )

[Jim]

the constitutional scholars will no doubt remind us that you have an expressly granted right to bear arms but no such specific right to fly, thus the later is far easier to tamper w/ than the former

 

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Who knows. Kind of a risky gambit, don't you think? Best way to lose is for the R's to pick a "safe bet" - like Romney was. Trump may go independent though - I can't see him getting the nomination at the convention. Then the D's win for sure. Please make sure it's not Bernie!

 

i agree w/ the first statement but not the second. The past century of presidential elections indicates whoever the republicans pick has a much greater than 50/50 shot of winning. romney would have been a shoe-in if he'd run in 2016 against clinton (and i woulda loved to have seen the dog crate on top of the white house )

 

More in line with what I said earlier: link

[CWC01]

 

No, I'm in favor of Due Process. How a person gets on the No Fly List is exactly the point if you're going to use it to remove constitutional rights. Claiming terrorism is the justification for removing rights is a deflection from the real issue which is domestic and national security. The breakdown was simply within how we admit immigrants and how we identify and monitor domestic and international threats. It's just convenient to try to make it a plank political issue otherwise the administration has to admit it failed at doing one of it's primary jobs.

 

 

You can't get a gun if you are a convicted felon, have a mental health history, have a domestic disturbance restriction order, and any number of other parameters. The second amendment, as SCOTUS has outline and just last week upheld by refusing to review a gun restriction law, is not universal. If Congress votes in a law that says if your on the No Fly list -- it IS just that simple. The logic that you are unsafe enough to jump on a SW flight to Vegas but ok to pickup the latest semi-automatic with a few hundred rounds of ammo is, well, astonishing.

it sounds like ya'll are in something like agreement - folks shouldn't be able to buy a gun if they're not trusted to fly either, but the process of deciding who's on that list needs to be just (and lord knows there must be many devils hiding in all those details)

 

the constitutional scholars will no doubt remind us that you have an expressly granted right to bear arms but no such specific right to fly, thus the later is far easier to tamper w/ than the former

 

Correct, there is no Due Process involved in placing names on the No Fly List. All that takes place is someone at the FBI decides arbitrarily a person is a threat (maybe even a similar name) and on the list they go. Regardless of your stand on guns, taking away someone's rights should involve Due Process. It is in the constitution after all.