Since green card holders aren't being blocked from entering now then I guess that shows Bannon isn't the one running the country then. That is a relief.Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Since green card holders aren't being blocked from entering now then I guess that shows Bannon isn't the one running the country then. That is a relief.
Since that was only announced after pushback from pretty much everywhere I guess you need to try again.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Since it's the waiver holders who aren't being blocked the green card holders still count as being blocked. There wouldn't be a waiver program in place unless someone plans to use both sides of it.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I think the common assumption about conditions inside the White House is that it's Ryan, Priebus and Pence vs Miller and Bannon.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
- VS -
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I don't believe there are any that you'd recognize as "conservative".
Whereas Steely considers The Economist and The Times to be conservative, neither are conservative in the sense the word seems to be typically employed in the US. In RB's manic delusions The Economist is practically a communist propaganda pamphlet.
Some people consider WSJ, FT, Lawfare Blog and HBR to be conservative. I generally think of their editorial stance as detached centrism.
For news I trust Reuters to give a concise and accurate--if sparse--account of current events, but I typically go to more local sources, and sources with greater resources for conducting research, for details on those events. I find it difficult to fault BBC on the quality of their reporting.
I prefer subject-specific sources such as Foreign Policy over general-purpose one-stop-shop sources, and these are more likely to feature high quality conservative takes on various issues. For some subjects there isn't much partisanship to be found among serious experts. For informative conservative takes on business and economic policy, EU policy, etc, I supplement mainstream sources such as FT, Economist, WSJ, Businessweek and HBR with a mixture of academic blogs, popular blogs with a reputation for thoroughness in both posts as well as comments, various contrarian blogs, forums and--of course--my friends.
Sometimes I turn to National Review, but their quality of writing is extremely variable and they do conservative thinkers a disservice with their compulsion to peddle opinions, emotions (typically outrage or glee) and troll-bait for clix. Those people are better enjoyed in a more literary and polished form through eg. The Atlantic or The National Journal, or their own blogs.
Frankly, the only conservatively slanted sources I "respect" that you'd know of are Fuzzy--who it may be inaccurate to describe as conservative in the sense I believe you use the word--and Enoch, who I suspect wears a cowboy hat and leather chaps on weekdays.
Last edited by Aimless; 02-02-2017 at 09:45 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Steely cherrypicking headlines proves nothing.
Aimless putting extreme words in my mouth may make you feel good about your strawman but doesn't make it so. I'd call The Times and The Economist centre-right but with tendencies to swing centre-left at times, like backing Blair's Labour. The one area The Economist is extreme on is in being Europhile.
Read the top three stories in each right now.
Being socially liberal is not center-left. Neither is favoring competence over incompetence.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'll bite.
Daily Mail
1. 'Devastated' Kylie Minogue 'ends her engagement to British actor Joshua Sasse over suspicions about his relationship with Spanish actress' - just days after gushing on TV about their wedding plans
2. Have they REALLY got nothing better to do? Eurocrats demand EU stars are placed on footballers and Olympians' shirts alongside national emblems
3. Is this the end of underwear? Why stars are forgoing bras and pants on the red carpet (and why they believe it makes them look more CLASSY)
The Guardian
1. Campaigners launch fresh Brexit legal challenge over single market
2. North Korea faces 'overwhelming' US response if it uses nuclear arms – Mattis
3. European parliament leaders call on EU to reject Trump's likely ambassador pick
Indeed. Kylie Minogue's engagement ending, what sports people wear on their clothing, and lack of celebrity underwear are much more important things to be concerned with today than Brexit, North Korea and Trump.
I must say, I was more tempted by the underwear scoop than by yet another 'Brexit challenge'
Congratulations America
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/2/14...green-massacre
Nice recap to the "obama banned people too" bullshit, with a side of a make believe terrorist attack. Guess she doesn't have to complain about people making fun of her "alternative facts" quote anymore.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Feel free to find headlines/stories of equivalent shittiness from the Guardian.
While you're at it, why don't you find something equivalent to the Mail's gleeful participation in the character assassination of Chris Jefferies after the murder of Joanna Yates? Or the infamous 1993 "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding" (note to foreigners: yes, really) headline? Or the Ralph Miliband hit piece?
EDIT:
or the blatantly false story about an immigrant (oh noes!) being allowed to stay in the country because he owned a cat: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...immigrant.html https://fullfact.org/news/catgate-ma...son-judgement/
Last edited by Steely Glint; 02-03-2017 at 01:05 PM.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.f2e53136cbdc
Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.
...
“It’s quite clear that not all the thought went into it that should have gone into it,” Brinkema said. “There has been chaos . . . without any kind of actual hard evidence that there is a need” to revoke visas already granted. People had relied on their visas as valid, she said; families had expected to be reunited with loved ones.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...014-visit-iran
Former Norway PM held at Washington airport over 2014 visit to Iran
To quote from elsewhere:
Former prime minister of US's safest fucking allied country, and a conservative minister of maybe the most including and moderate of any traditional christian church, invited guest to the annual National Prayer Breakfast, travelling on DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT.
Even before he left the Norwegian government this guy was well known for his peace talk initiatives, and the Oslo Centre he is the current president of is one of the lead partners for "One World in Dialogue" which aims to make a UN charter on how to preserve places considered holy across religions and cultures.
He spends his life traveling speaking of peace, acceptance and human rights to all corners of the world. He should get a medal for being able to open dialogue where it is most needed.
So yeah, basically this guy is the type of person that Trump/Bannon would be most afraid of.
The worst part is that the officers are blaming Obama for the mess Trump is creating.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
That was deliberate. As the story says, he had diplomatic papers. A) diplomatic papers were clearly labeled as one of the exempt groups in the EO, B) customs agents are, in fact, trained about how to deal with those who have such papers. This IS Dulles airport, they do get such transients from time to time each day. I couldn't tell you if someone wanted to vent some spleen at Norway for some reason or someone decided it was a great "anti-profiling" idea but if he was detained and questioned it was because someone higher up deliberately wanted that to happen.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well the officers said this is due to Obama's rules. Trump's rules AFAIK excluded diplomats so that'd make sense. Though I suppose executive pressure could mean that Obama's rules are being interpreted differently now.
You know what? I wouldn't be surprised if there is an attack attempted by a refugee now after this circus. I wonder if it'll be allowed to occur by Trumpists in the various intelligence agencies.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Wait a minute. Does the establishment clause apply to executive orders?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Why wouldn't it?
Hope is the denial of reality
lol I like how you set it up. "No refugee attack? See they were fine!" Refugee attack occurs, "Probably a Trumpist allowed it to happen to prove a point." Get real.
Did you miss the part where not one American has been killed in a terrorist attack by immigrants/refugees from the 7 countries on the ban list?
Hope is the denial of reality
Of course that misses the fact that there have been:
1: Potential terrorists from those nations arrested in the USA prior to attacks.
2: Hundreds of murders in Europe by terrorist attacks from immigrants/refugees from those countries in recent years.
Source for #2? IIRC most perpetrators were from different countries, like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia (plus most were European citizens so when they canceled the ban for those with double passports this order wouldn't affect them).
You claim hundreds of murders so I guess we can just look at the bigger ones:
Berlin truck attack: Tunisian.
Nice truck attack: Tunisian.
Brussels bombing: all but one of Moroccan decent, one of Syrian descent (but born in Norway).
Charlie Hebdo: Algerian and Mali descent.
Brussels Jewish museum: Algerian descent.
Paris attacks: a bit harder to find out, likely two Iraqis. But again most are not from one of the 7 countries.
Last edited by Flixy; 02-05-2017 at 10:37 AM.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Afaict the text itself refers only to congress's legislative powers, not the president's authority. I'd just assumed that it had been established later, in US constitutional law theory and practice, that this restriction applied to other branches and other levels of government but I have been unable to find a specific ruling that clearly shows that it applies to EOs. I figure there must be one but who knows, I've been disappointed so many times of late
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There are two implicit claims in my post. The first is based on my assumptions about things that may enable or provoke radicalization. This order made many people very angry and those who saw all their money wasted by it are likely to be angrier than most. It may also take away from desperate and abused people their last hope of reuniting with their loved ones and making for themselves a decent life with a good future. Angry people with no hope would seem to be more likely to be radicalized by terrorist recruiters or just get ideas all on their own.
The second part is of course conspiratorial but lately US politics has seemed more like a bad political thriller than like real world politics in a modern western democracy so I'm not taking anything for granted anymore, esp. in light of rumours about the deep divisions in some intelligence agencies.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hence #muslimban
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
From memory the Bataclan attack was planned in Syria and all the attackers that day had been to Syria and a couple of the attackers were Iraqis. Though many were indeed Europe-born Muslims who'd gone to Syria and returned and attacked Paris that night.
Though indeed you seem to be right that by only including seven nations he does seem to have excluded most of the Muslim terrorist attackers from the '"it's not really a Muslim ban" Muslim ban'. Had it been an actual Muslim ban then they would have been excluded but it's not so they're not.
*shrug* It's the version of a Muslim ban they thought they'd be able to get away with. Combined with the exception for religious minorities it amounts to a ban on Muslim refugees from those countries. That's just another flavor of Muslim ban. There aren't all that many Muslim refugees to the US from most other Muslim countries. Statements made by Trump & co. leading up to the EO strongly suggest that their intent was to implement some form of Muslim ban, and that will also be taken into account.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I don't think anyone disputes that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
