192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 02:50 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
Any other stupid questions?

You mean besides this one?
giujohn wrote:
How come you aren't screaming for swimming pool safety???


If you're going to be that obtuse I guess I'll have to provide an explanation. There's a difference between being killed by someone with a handheld weapon and a person dying by drowning in a swimming pool. That's why there are safety mechanisms on firearms — they are inherently more dangerous than baseball bats. They are designed that way and they present more risk to society because of that reason.


Well I don't think you're being purposely obtuse I think you're just in keeping with the fake news bent by using patently specious reasoning in your arguments.

The article and the discussion brought up by the article was about accidental deaths of children by guns.

So you're ridiculous question about if someone ever pulled a swimming pool on me is moot... just like you.
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 02:57 pm
Democrats picked a real low life to head the DNC... I wonder if CI will be as vociferous in his condemnation of this slimey scumbag as he does with our beloved president.

"Behind closed doors, controversial Labor Secretary Thomas Perez indicated that he plans to announce he will run for the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The party is looking to replace their disgraced interim chair Donna Brazile, who replaced Debbie Wasserman Schultz after she was forced to resign in disgrace, as well.

Enter Mr. Perez, a former Department of Justice (DOJ) assistant attorney general who came under a microscope after President Barack Obama announced his nomination for secretary of the Labor Department. Before his confirmation, an inspector general report concluded the department was grossly mismanaged, career attorneys were abused and intimidated by and under Mr. Perez.

The report also revealed threats made toward black employees who were willing to work on cases like the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, as well as another case in Mississipp. All involved civil rights violators and perpetrators who were black and white victims. In one such case, Attorney General Loretta King complained to then-Attorney General Eric Holder over Voting Section Chief Chris Coates, who was willing to use civil rights laws to protect white voters.

Mr. Perez got the order to “take care” of Mr. King.

The controversy over the voting rights case wasn’t even the first time Mr. Perez found himself in political hot water. He was caught abusing his power during a secret quid-pro-quo deal in 2011 with the city of St. Paul, Minnesota. He later perjured himself when he told Congress that the DOJ agreed not to intervene in two whistle-blower cases against St. Paul–in exchange for the city dropping its Supreme Court petition–because the cases were “weak.”

However, emails obtained after the Mr. Perez gave his congressional testimony clearly demonstrated career lawyers at DOJ believed those cases were strong."
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 03:04 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
Border agents detained and questioned the son of the boxing legend Muhammad Ali about his religion when he flew back to the US this month, a family lawyer said.

“Where did you get your name from? Are you a Muslim?” they asked the 44-year-old Muhammad Ali Jr, who was born in Philadelphia and is a US citizen.

When Ali confirmed to immigration officials at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood international airport in Florida that he was a Muslim, they began questioning him about where he was born, family friend and lawyer Chris Mancini told the Courier-Journal newspaper. The questioning lasted for about two hours.
[...]
The former prime minister of Norway was held for nearly an hour at Washington Dulles airport earlier this month and questioned over a visit to Iran three years ago, which he had made to speak at a human rights conference.

Meanwhile, the best-selling Australian children’s book author Mem Fox has suggested she might never return to the US after she was detained and insulted by border control agents at Los Angeles international airport. The 70-year-old said she was left “sobbing like a baby” after two hours of questioning while on her way to a conference.

A British Muslim schoolteacher travelling to New York last week as a member of a school party from south Wales was denied entry to the US. The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, had previously claimed the US government had committed to allowing all UK passport holders to enter the country.
Source



Sounds like things are working nicely...Bout ******* time.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  3  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 03:12 pm
Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent

Quote:
Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.


More at link: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/

Threatening to seize a protestor's assets is suppression / chilling of the right to engage in free speech.

Why are they doing this? Because of the damn "paid protestors" <--- after all, no one would protest against Trump and the far right-wing agenda if they aren't paid to do so, right? Rolling Eyes

The Arizona bill is designed to suppress left wing speech. But some right wing lawmakers are worried it might backfire on conservatives / tea party people (apparently the UNPAID protestors of our current time) if some left-winger shows up and throws a brick through a window. But that's not a problem if authorities engage in selective enforcement. . . .
revelette1
 
  2  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 03:20 pm
@Debra Law,
Surely civil rights groups can take that to court?
Debra Law
 
  3  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 03:27 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Quote:
Abolishing regulations necessary for the protection of our the environment and our survival as a species in favor of greater profits for corporations.


You were or are a lawyer so a question. Can we sue Trump when the Dakota pipeline ruptures and spewes oil into the Missouri river?


I doubt it.

The company is responsible for clean-up. If the company shirks its responsibility, then the State of North Dakota is responsible for the clean-up.

But even if the Tribe could sue the federal government in a ND federal district court, there would be very little or no chance of success with a North Dakota jury. If you observe the comments to every news release on the matter, then you would see that the local people (almost all white) who would serve on any possible jury are very pro-oil and anti-Indian.

edited to add this:

The original plan for the pipeline route was to cross the river just north of Bismarck, ND (the state capitol). Because the risk of a pipeline leak and the threat to the city's water supply, the plan was altered to move south and then cross the river immediately north of the Indian Reservation and under Lake Oahe (which serves as the Indian Reservation's major fresh water reservoir).
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 03:39 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
Well I don't think you're being purposely obtuse I think you're just in keeping with the fake news bent by using patently specious reasoning in your arguments.

It's called reasoning by analogy. Your comparison between accidental gun deaths and swimming pool drownings is a much better example of specious reasoning.

Quote:
The article and the discussion brought up by the article was about accidental deaths of children by guns.

Which is why your comment struck me as particularly inane.

Why would you want to come across as someone who apparently feels that the accidental firearms deaths of children — hell, of anybody — is just something to shrug off with a rather weak and illogical one-liner?

I'd expect anyone who believes in keeping firearms at home would be adamant about gun safety and frustrated that people leave loaded weapons around. If you can't afford a gun safe or don't have a trigger or barrel locking device, at least keep your ammo and empty firearm stored in separate locations.
Debra Law
 
  2  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 03:47 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Surely civil rights groups can take that to court?


This appears to be a bill that passed the state senate and was then sent to the state house of representatives for consideration and a vote. It's not the law yet. It needs to pass both chambers and then sent to the governor (who may sign it into law or veto it). It's possible that citizens and civil rights groups can contact legislators and the governor's office to voice dissent and stop the bill in its tracks.

If it becomes law, then certainly yes ... there would indeed be a court challenge because it serves to chill free speech.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 05:59 pm
@Debra Law,
Arizona seems to be a backward country rather than one of the states. The right to demonstrate peacefully is a right in this country, but not in Arizona.

What's next?

It'll be illegal to say anything negative about Trump.

See you in court.
Debra Law
 
  4  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 06:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Arizona seems to be a backward country rather than one of the states. The right to demonstrate peacefully is a right in this country, but not in Arizona.

What's next?

It'll be illegal to say anything negative about Trump.

See you in court.


Trump ... the thin-skinned coward ... doesn't even dare show up for the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.

Quote:
WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that he would not attend the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner, a high-profile event that draws celebrities, politicians and journalists.

"I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!," Trump wrote on Twitter.

On the campaign trail and in the White House, Trump has had a strained relationship with the press, calling journalists "the enemy of the people" and frequently criticizing outlets and individual reporters whose coverage he does not like.

The reporters' group said it would go ahead with its April 29 dinner despite Trump's absence. The Washington event typically draws movie stars, politicians and business leaders to hear a humorous speech by the sitting president. . . .


More at link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-decides-to-skip-white-house-press-dinner/ar-AAnp2BY?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 07:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It'll be illegal to say anything negative about Trump.


According to him it already is. And if not illegal at least false news.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 07:58 pm
@RABEL222,
According to Vox, millions can lose their health insurance under Trump's plan.
Don't you just admire those folks who voted for Trump?
I wonder how long those jobless folks are going to wait for Trump's job plan?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 08:22 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
They are not facts, unless you subscribe to Kellyanne Conway's incredulous theory that LIES are "alternative facts."

I just gave you government links showing that the Obama Administration attempted every single thing that I accused them of.


Debra Law wrote:
The NRA lies and you have fits of hysteria. That's a FACT. The supporting evidence of that FACT is all found all over this discussion board.

I doubt that anyone can show any untrue statements by the NRA.

Objecting to the grave violation of my civil rights is hardly hysteria.


Debra Law wrote:
You have not shown that a legislative ban on assault weapons would violate your rights under the Second Amendment.

That's easy. A law is only allowed to impact Constitutional rights if there is a good reason for that law. That is long-established doctrine regarding all of our Constitutional rights.

There is no reason whatsoever for a ban on assault weapons. Therefore any such law runs afoul of the above doctrine.


Debra Law wrote:
The ban was subject to many constitutional challenges, and all challenges were rejected by our courts.

The fact that Democratic appointees maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated is exactly why it was so important to elect Trump.

Note the ages of the following Left-wing extremists:
Anthony Kennedy: 80
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 83
Stephen Breyer: 78

Once Trump has nominated their replacements, the Supreme Court will begin to enforce the Second Amendment.

The election of Donald Trump has saved this country's freedom. We'd be in big trouble right now if not for Trump.


Debra Law wrote:
The proposed 2013 bill did not pass. Apparently the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School was insufficient for our lawmakers to re-enact the ban.

I know. I was on the front lines of the fight to stop it.

But it certainly showed the Democrats' intent to violate the Second Amendment.

Luckily that fight had the unintended side effect of destroying liberalism as a political force in America.


Debra Law wrote:
Again, however, even if the ban had been enacted, your "rights" would not have been violated.

Banning a weapon when there is no reason to ban it is very much a violation of my Constitutional rights.


Debra Law wrote:
You don't have an unlimited right to own whatever arms you desire to own.

However, I do have a right to own a weapon if there is no plausible reason for banning it.


Debra Law wrote:
Assault weapons are extremely dangerous and highly unusual for members in society at large to keep in their homes.

No they aren't. Adding harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip to a gun does not make it any more dangerous than it would be without that harmless cosmetic feature.

And assault weapons are some of the most popular guns in America. Hardly unusual.


Debra Law wrote:
Our courts have consistently rejected constitutional challenges to assault weapon bans.

That's because the Democrats put judges on the courts who maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated.

That's why it was so important to elect Donald Trump. He will put justices on the Supreme Court who will finally enforce the Second Amendment.


Debra Law wrote:
Your allegation that such a ban would be a grave violation of the Second Amendment has no foundation in fact or law.

That is incorrect. The principle that "a law is only allowed to impact a Constitutional right if there is a very good reason for that law" is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence.


Debra Law wrote:
Not even Scalia would have found such a ban unconstitutional.

Sure he would have. He believed in upholding the Constitution.


Debra Law wrote:
This is NOT an executive order issued by Obama.

Close enough. It is the action that the federal government took as a direct result of Obama's executive order telling them to do it.


Debra Law wrote:
There is no such "horrendous executive order".

Unfortunately there is. But Donald Trump will soon overturn it.


Debra Law wrote:
You provided a link to a publication in the federal register setting forth the final rules (promulgated by the Social Security Administration) necessary to comply with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which was signed into law by President Bush.

The Social Security Administration is promulgating these rules because Obama ordered them to do so.

Donald Trump is going to scrap that order and forbid them from doing so.


Debra Law wrote:
NICS is the "National Instant Criminal Backgrounds Check System". The Social Security Administration is required by law to report the names of all persons who have been adjudicated to be mentally ill and must have their mental illness disability checks sent to a representative payee.

That is quite different from what Obama's executive order would do. His order covers all disabled people who don't handle their own finances.

There is a big difference between a mental disability and a mental illness. Someone with dyslexia could be banned from having guns under Obama's executive order.

I'm sure the Left would be happy to take guns from everyone who has dyslexia, but fortunately disabled people have rights in America.

There is also a big difference between someone who *must* have their checks sent to a third party and someone who *does* have their checks sent to a third party. Some guys merely have their wife handle all their fiances. Having your spouse handle the checkbook is not grounds for losing your rights.


Debra Law wrote:
Scalia noted in the Heller decision, see above, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. . . ."

There is a big difference between a mental illness and a mental disability.

Dyslexia is not a reason for violating someone's Constitutional rights.


Debra Law wrote:
However, evidence of an adjudicated mental illness or of a criminal conviction for a felony is longstanding justification for prohibiting mentally ill persons and felons from possessing guns.

A mere mental disability (like dyslexia) however is not a justification for violating someone's rights.


Debra Law wrote:
And as much as it causes you pain, even mentally ill vets cannot possess firearms.

Vets who have a disability but are not mentally ill, however, do have the right to possess firearms.


Debra Law wrote:
Do you remember this sad story:
Guilty verdict for troubled vet who murdered American Sniper
http://ew.com/article/2015/02/25/american-sniper-guilty-verdict/
Quote:
The ex-Marine who shot Chris Kyle, the Navy SEAL better known as the American Sniper, was convicted of murder by a Texas jury and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Eddie Ray Routh, 27, had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the 2013 gun-range shooting that killed Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Routh’s attorneys claimed that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder, and said they intended to appeal the decision after the jury needed only two hours to come to its conclusion.

I don't remember it. But there is a significant difference between a serious mental illness and someone who has a disability like dyslexia.


Debra Law wrote:
Even if a person who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and PTSD is a "law-abiding citizen" (normally), he still shouldn't be given access to guns. He was mentally ill.

A law-abiding person who is merely dyslexic however has every right to have guns.


Debra Law wrote:
Every court that has ever considered a ban on assault weapons has rejected your allegation that such a ban is a "grave violation" of the Second Amendment.

That is because the Democrats have packed the courts with judges who maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated.

That is why it was so important to elect Donald Trump.

After a few of the liberal justices on the court retire and Trump picks their replacements, the Supreme Court will overturn rulings like this.


Debra Law wrote:
Not even Scalia would agree with you.

Sure he would. He believed in upholding the Constitution.


Debra Law wrote:
The Fourth Circuit opinion cited Scalia's decision in Heller.

Leftist judges say all sorts of things when they concoct nonsense to justify violating the Constitution.


Debra Law wrote:
Your argument has no support in fact or law.

That is incorrect. It is a longstanding legal principle that a law can only impact a Constitutional right if there is a very good reason for that law.


Debra Law wrote:
Stop drinking the NRA Kool-Aid.

Another compliment to the NRA by associating them with facts.


Debra Law wrote:
Why don't you read the Heller decision and the Fourth Circuit opinion and educate yourself.

Because I already know everything that there is to know about the Heller case. I even helped out with an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.


Debra Law wrote:
If you don't feed your mind through self-education, then there's nothing worthwhile swirling around in your brain to ponder.

My mind is very well fed.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 08:23 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
giujohn wrote:
How come you aren't screaming for swimming pool safety???
The deaths are astronomical compared to guns.

When's the last time you were threatened by a guy brandishing a swimming pool?

Are we talking about accidental deaths or intentional murders?

Although murderers are capable of forcibly drowning their victims in swimming pools, intentional murders are not the result of either guns or pools. They are the result of someone deciding to commit murder.

I think the original point though was in regards to accidental deaths.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 08:24 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
If you're going to be that obtuse I guess I'll have to provide an explanation. There's a difference between being killed by someone with a handheld weapon and a person dying by drowning in a swimming pool.

What is this alleged difference?

Is one victim "more dead" than the other?


hightor wrote:
That's why there are safety mechanisms on firearms — they are inherently more dangerous than baseball bats. They are designed that way and they present more risk to society because of that reason.

So guns have more safety features than baseball bats because there is a greater risk of accidental death from a gun than there is of accidental death from a bat?

I believe the original question involved swimming pools. Does anyone know how the rate of accidental death from swimming pools compares with the rate of accidental death from guns?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 08:28 pm
@oralloy,
You lie like the NRA.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/national-rifle-association/
You have been brainwashed. Go see a psychiatrist to see if they can cure your alternative universe.
Debra Law
 
  3  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 08:34 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
They are not facts, unless you subscribe to Kellyanne Conway's incredulous theory that LIES are "alternative facts."

I just gave you government links showing that the Obama Administration attempted every single thing that I accused them of.


No, you didn't. You're not being honest with me, and I don't see any reason to continue reading.

giujohn
 
  0  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 08:34 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
Well I don't think you're being purposely obtuse I think you're just in keeping with the fake news bent by using patently specious reasoning in your arguments.

It's called reasoning by analogy. Your comparison between accidental gun deaths and swimming pool drownings is a much better example of specious reasoning.

Quote:
The article and the discussion brought up by the article was about accidental deaths of children by guns.

Which is why your comment struck me as particularly inane.

Why would you want to come across as someone who apparently feels that the accidental firearms deaths of children — hell, of anybody — is just something to shrug off with a rather weak and illogical one-liner?

I'd expect anyone who believes in keeping firearms at home would be adamant about gun safety and frustrated that people leave loaded weapons around. If you can't afford a gun safe or don't have a trigger or barrel locking device, at least keep your ammo and empty firearm stored in separate locations.


Your feeble attempt to change the narrative of the discussion notwithstanding, you need to look up the definition of analogy and also the word specious, cuz you're not even close.

Either an idiot or someone who is desperately trying to make an argument wont see the obvious correlation between the death of children by guns or by drowning in a swimming pool. People should be more hysterical about swimming pool safety then they should be about gun safety considering the vast numbers of children who die in those swimming pools. For the gun grabbers it's not about safety it's not about the death of children it's about depriving people of Liberty and their birthright.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 08:38 pm
@giujohn,
Nothing wrong with hightor's analogy. We still have accidental killings in the home where children kill their siblings, and some times their parents.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/91906700/
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 08:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You lie like the NRA.

You cannot show a single untrue thing that either I or the NRA have said.


cicerone imposter wrote:
You have been brainwashed.

It is funny how liberals try to deny the reality of their crusade to violate our rights.

You don't fool anyone. The official record shows quite clearly how the Left tries to violate everyone's rights.


cicerone imposter wrote:
Go see a psychiatrist to see if they can cure your alternative universe.

You're the only one here who is denying facts and reality.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.76 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 07:00:42