Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
KaskadskyjKozak

Plus ça change...

Recommended Posts

 

Isn't that what we have now? An administration advocating suspending due process to disarm civilians while telling them what to think.

Are you talking about The Patriot Act, and it was signed by Bush. Now, don't you have some donkeys to fuck? Or maybe your daddy is waiting for you in a tool shed?

 

Bush has been gone a long time, what has the current president done to reverse the unconstitutional misdeeds of the last president? Hint: nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

 

 

Edited by ivan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Isn't that what we have now? An administration advocating suspending due process to disarm civilians while telling them what to think.

answer: no :)

 

Hitler, eh?

shall we draw a venn diagram comparing trump and carter's proposal?

 

carter proposed citizens of a well-defined nation-state currently engaged in hostilities against the usa be denied entry into the country (with an appeals/exemption process)

 

trump proposes a nebulous blanket ban of all humans fitting a gray ethnic label or constitutionally-protected religious conviction, neither of which has an official political leadership that has declared war on us (or even exists, for that matter), w/ no sort of process to challenge the denial either

 

it's wierd to see someone on the right accuse carter of being too forceful in responding to the challenge of iran - keerist, ya'll fall over yourselves laughing at how much of a ineffectual mr. rogers kinda pussy he was in dealing w/ them, no? :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to go with whatever fits your narrative and pokes your opponent in the eye. jeez Ivan you knew that.

 

[video:youtube]lk6_7DTVN8Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carter proposed citizens of a well-defined nation-state currently engaged in hostilities against the usa be denied entry into the country (with an appeals/exemption process)

 

I characterize it differently. Iran was in a revolution (just like Syria). What did they do? Stormed our embassy and took hostages. They were not a threat to the US (yet). There were no Iranian terrorist attacks on US or European targets (unlike today). As a precautionary measure we stopped accepted immigrants from Iran, would not extend visas - until we knew we were safe from attacks. There is nothing wrong with doing exactly the same thing here.

 

As for Trump's rhetoric, well he's not as nuanced and smooth as W. Yes, can you believe that? :)

 

What Trump should be saying is we are not accepting any immigrants or visas from countries [enumeration goes here]. Fill in that blank starting with Syria, Saudi Arabia (how many 9/11 terrorists were from there and this new attack in SoCal had ties to Saudi Arabia). Probably you throw in Pakistan and a few more countries. No need to specify religious persuasion just point of origin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

carter was under intense pressure to free what, like nearly a hundred americans, seized after a violation of one of antiquity's most ancient protocols (the inviolability of ambassadors), and after more than a year? his lack of forceful response was, as you know, one of the chief issues causing his defeat at the hands of reagan. his hope was clearly that this action against iranian citizens in the usa would create pressure that would make military inaction necessary.

 

what do you think trump would propose if, say, mexico was currently holding 100 american embassy personnel for more than 15 minutes? does the "bomb the shit out of them" mentality that extends far beyond trump's campaign really have much ground to stand on in critiquing a slow ratcheting up of diplomatic tensions?

 

your suggestion of naming particular nation-states as worthy of suspicion is less crazy and more in keeping w/ our history

 

that said, both actions directly support isis's battle-plan and should therefore be avoided

 

would you say, from the perspective of a 100 years, that it was a wise idea for the usa to deport italians and italian-americans willy-nilly out of fear of anarchism? that the mass incarceration of japanese-americans in ww2 improved our safety or moved our national narrative of the "great shining city on a hill" any further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Isn't that what we have now? An administration advocating suspending due process to disarm civilians while telling them what to think.

Are you talking about The Patriot Act, and it was signed by Bush. Now, don't you have some donkeys to fuck? Or maybe your daddy is waiting for you in a tool shed?

 

Bush has been gone a long time, what has the current president done to reverse the unconstitutional misdeeds of the last president? Hint: nothing.

 

Hint: legislation is written by Congress, not by the executive branch. Last I checked Republicans had majority in both chambers. Just saying....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carter was under intense pressure to free what, like nearly a hundred americans,

 

my recollection was 50-something.

 

seized after a violation of one of antiquity's most ancient protocols (the inviolability of ambassadors),

 

Maybe this event served as model for the Red Wedding? :)

 

and after more than a year? his lack of forceful response was, as you know, one of the chief issues causing his defeat at the hands of reagan. his hope was clearly that this action against iranian citizens in the usa would create pressure that would make military inaction necessary.

 

I didn't check the chronology - the visa ban was a year later??

 

 

what do you think trump would propose if, say, mexico was currently holding 100 american embassy personnel for more than 15 minutes? does the "bomb the shit out of them" mentality that extends far beyond trump's campaign really have much ground to stand on in critiquing a slow ratcheting up of diplomatic tensions?

 

This is where it gets interesting. I think Trump is a smart fucker spinning the wheel to get elected. What he says now (during the primaries) and what he will say and what he will do ... I suspect these are very different things. We both know that he could never actually do what he is saying now, and I am sure he knows it too. You can't ban Muslims from coming into the country. How would you even screen for that - just ask the applicant if they are Muslim and trust terrorists to tell the truth? How would that policy/law hold up in the courts? How would he even make it happen with so much resistance from congress, the press...

 

that said, both actions directly support isis's battle-plan and should therefore be avoided

 

You've alluded to ISIS motives before and I have to reply this time. Back in the W/post 9/11 days a lot of (mostly right-wing) folks were saying "they hate us because of our freedoms and way of life" and other (mostly left-wing) folks were calling bullshit on that. We don't know why they do what they want or what their "battle plan" is. Honestly, I'd be surprised if it is much more than "kill as many infidels as you can, cause chaos". If we stop accepting immigrants or refuges they can take advantage of that in some way. If we keep taking them they can take advantage of that (infiltrate, seed cells). I don't think they care or plan for either way. They'll adjust as needed

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carter proposed citizens of a well-defined nation-state currently engaged in hostilities against the usa be denied entry into the country (with an appeals/exemption process)

 

I characterize it differently. Iran was in a revolution (just like Syria). What did they do? Stormed our embassy and took hostages. They were not a threat to the US (yet). There were no Iranian terrorist attacks on US or European targets (unlike today). As a precautionary measure we stopped accepted immigrants from Iran, would not extend visas - until we knew we were safe from attacks. There is nothing wrong with doing exactly the same thing here.

 

As for Trump's rhetoric, well he's not as nuanced and smooth as W. Yes, can you believe that? :)

 

What Trump should be saying is we are not accepting any immigrants or visas from countries [enumeration goes here]. Fill in that blank starting with Syria, Saudi Arabia (how many 9/11 terrorists were from there and this new attack in SoCal had ties to Saudi Arabia). Probably you throw in Pakistan and a few more countries. No need to specify religious persuasion just point of origin.

 

wtf? why is trump even a semi serious discussion? he is a moron without a clue, trying to capture a vote of the lowest most common denominator. Ugly fackwad too, someone should shove that toupee up his ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

that said, both actions directly support isis's battle-plan and should therefore be avoided

 

You've alluded to ISIS motives before and I have to reply this time. Back in the W/post 9/11 days a lot of (mostly right-wing) folks were saying "they hate us because of our freedoms and way of life" and other (mostly left-wing) folks were calling bullshit on that. We don't know why they do what they want or what their "battle plan" is. Honestly, I'd be surprised if it is much more than "kill as many infidels as you can, cause chaos". If we stop accepting immigrants or refuges they can take advantage of that in some way. If we keep taking them they can take advantage of that (infiltrate, seed cells). I don't think they care or plan for either way. They'll adjust as needed

 

my gut feeling is these boys are like most assholes w/ guns - they want to carve out a space for themselves to do as they wish and enjoy being the top dogs, ideally w/ a nifty apocalyptic ideology to support it all

 

still, like the anarchists before them, isis needs a "propaganda of the word" to tie their dipshit thing together and attract fresh blood - that "word" is that the whole world is at war w/ muslims and all muslims must get off the fence and choose a side - the west showing itself hostile to muslims, regardless of their individuality, can only shove the billion plus of them towards our enemy

 

am i the only southerner here? the whole thing reminds me of the wildly racist uncle remus tale of brer rabbit and the tar baby...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

random thought - the lord's resistance army is currently doing unspeakable horror in the depths of africa, and ostensibly in the name of christianity - why don't we bar all christains from entering america until we figure that shit out? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
random thought - the lord's resistance army is currently doing unspeakable horror in the depths of africa, and ostensibly in the name of christianity - why don't we bar all christains from entering america until we figure that shit out? :)

 

Because they aren't in the US (or France) bombing us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Trump should be saying is we are not accepting any immigrants or visas from countries [enumeration goes here]. Fill in that blank starting with Syria, Saudi Arabia (how many 9/11 terrorists were from there and this new attack in SoCal had ties to Saudi Arabia). Probably you throw in Pakistan and a few more countries. No need to specify religious persuasion just point of origin.

On the surface this would seem like a reasonable thing but when faced with reality, it is worthless and counter productive.

 

Much like the NRA's argument, if you outlaw gunz only outlaws will have gunz. Innocent gun owners will be harmed

 

If you refuse refugees from certain countries entry, only terrorists will lie about their country of origin and innocent refugees will be refused entry.

 

every organism tries to stay alive. most human made organizations do as well so we have to look at their actions in terms of wether it is part of their true agenda or means for survival or means for growing. These relatively low body account attacks are not really addressing their "kill infedels" agenda. Maybe a biological attack that kills millions would. These attacks are all about recruiting more members to strengthen (grow) at home. If we respond as they expect, they will win.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you refuse refugees from certain countries entry, only terrorists will lie about their country of origin and innocent refugees will be refused entry.

 

I'm not sure I buy that argument, because we are talking about people not things (guns) but at least it's a reasonable counterpoint. Is anyone else saying this? About two orders of magnitude better than "Trump is Hitler". :tup:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

True to form you produce worthless blather.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×