ColoNoCoHusker
-
Posts
725 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by ColoNoCoHusker
-
-
-
Here's the two best independent agencies for testing/rating AV software. Anything on their list is a legit/safe product on its own. Only one I would recommend staying away from is Webroot but that is data privacy rather than software issue.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/
As far as getting rid of all that malware/crapware, I would recommend wiping the laptop. It will be way less effort and its the easiest guarantee you will get rid of it all. If you want to PM me O/S, make/model of laptop, happy to give you some direction here...
-
2
-
-
I have been very confused by Repub politician's position on TPP. They are typically in favor of say, a Canadian pipeline through the midwest. They are against a trade agreement that gives US more access/influence to Pacific Rim markets and help keep China in check. The TPP as it sat needed a LOT of changes but from economic perspective, scrapping it really went against traditional Republican dogma...
-
1
-
-
I am happy to be a broken here. What evidence is there the process is/has been broken? How does a ban make it better/easier/faster/cheaper/more reliable to fix the vetting process?
The analogies are endless but, as with anything, if it cannot be Quantified (i.e measured in real numbers), how can anyone hope to make it better? Whether it's football scores, number of terrorist acts by refugees, number of terrorist attacks by immigrants, improving business revenue, etc. the process of improvement is the same. Otherwise it is nothing more than propaganda, period. This goes for ANY party/candidate.
I am completely in favor of continuous improvement of our immigration & refugee vetting process. Let's define the problem, though. There is no valid reason to presuppose the process is completely broken and this ban is valid based on any Quantitative measure. Couple that with the history of the EO's authors/sponsors and this carries every indication of being racially or religiously motivated.
-
Having problem with multi-quote button, atm...
Oade & others - I think everyone agrees it would be great to improve our vetting. The question that nobody can answer is HOW does this ban do improve our vetting; WHAT changes need to be made to our vetting; and, HOW has the vetting from these countries failed? Everyone has an opinion on whether this process is broken or not. Myself and others are looking for Quantitative evidence which demonstrates the US vetting process for these countries has been inadequate. Otherwise, this discussion is going to continue to spin its wheels and go nowhere as feelings aren't typically grounded in facts (human issue, not calling anyone out).
-
I can respect where some feel that identifying posters by name can feel dirty or attacking. That said, the problem cannot be addressed if that doesn't happen either via PM or in a topic such as this.
Maybe I am missing where the posts have gotten so bad as to make people feel unsafe. The times where it gets contentious is when: A) Poster states an opinion and is unwilling/unable to provide evidence for that opinion; 2) Poster states a position and when contrary evidence is presented, gets frustrated/upset rather than addressing it; C) Poster wrote X but meant Y - the mind readers steer clear of P&R so this is going to be an issue.
Surprisingly, none of this is unique to Huskerboard. If you have a position you want share, provide evidence for it. This applies to everyone.
Most people have a tendency to read/assume tone on what they read. We all need to try and not do that, especially on a message board. Everyone has a different writing/language style and it is easy to misinterpret a statement if you guess the wrong tone.
If you don't want to write more than a few words, the P&R forum is probably not the best place for this posting style. These are tough topics that generally cannot be meaningfully discussed in 7-10 word answers.
-
4
-
-
I think if my dad raised us today, his opinion on playing youth football would be to wait rather than need to play it. Personally, I think kids need to play sports. Don't care which and if flag football was my son's interest, I'm fine with that. Football is a complex sport and requires a lot of confidence; as long as kids are doing some type of sport, they can start tackle football in middle school and be fine, imo. I think your approach is a good one.
-
I think it is worth trying. It's funny they mention flag football; that has gotten much more popular around my area the last few years at the expense of traditional youth football. When I coached competitive youth league, I was amazed at how much play there was in some of the equipment. It has gotten much better but I think that is still part of the problem. I had a few kids that outgrew their equipment by the middle of the season. Rugby is also taking a huge toll on youth football numbers out here. For the parents, the issue is child safety but also $$.
-
Reich is good stuff. I just bought a bunch of Paul Krugman books to try to better understand economics, since I have no formal study of it whatsoever. Reich will be next on my list.
Good choice, great mind/author. If you like Krugman's works, I would recommend reading David Landes' Wealth & Poverty of Nations at some point. It's Euro-centric and Euro-biased, BUT, if you can keep that in check, it's an interesting attempt to look at economic histories from wide range of aspects/impact (social, geographic, political, climactic, etc).
-
2
-
-
I have nothing but respect for how the Patriots go about their business. All the talk of cheating amounts to no more then excuse making by the rest of the league. I like the direction my Vikings are going with Spielman, and Zimmer, but it's impossible not to admire the "Patriot Way"....
I think the reason cheating by the Pat's gets so much play is because the Pat's have been so good, they'd win without it. The better the team, the higher the standard/expectations around this. Their performance under Belichick has been nothing short of astounding
-
That's yet to be seen, this administration better hope it leads to a better process or there will be hell to pay and they'll get trashed even further for it. Why would we continue an unsafe practice if it's seen unsafe by the current administration? That could be considered equally as reckless IMO as an all out ban. Like I said, there is a fine line to walk here and I'm assuming there has been some national security intel brought up that led to this ban that we all aren't completely aware of. It should make folks feel a little better that the Obama administration tagged these same countries as being dangerous, but it doesn't seem to be helping.
Let me ask you this, if it comes up later that there was real intel that led this administration to make this decision and it led to a better/safer process that you can't see until months down the road would you like this decision more?
Trying to cleanup the quote, BRI...
So this ban improving our immigration is based on hoping that it leads to a better process. You are also comfortable with trusting the "eyesight" of the current administration over facts & figures? Bannon and a few others have a track record of poor "eyesight" by most measures but I "see" what you are saying.
I guess I'm not comfortable ignoring ALL the evidence to this point to make the large assumptions that you are in "hoping" this is more/different than it is. I don't see how Trump/Bannon's opinion qualifies as "real intel". I also don't see how, within days of taking office, this intel would exist given how Trump has handled our Intelligence Agencies in his first week. By all accounts, these Agencies were not involved in this decision; if there was "real intel" it would have leaked, especially with the people that were forced out.
-
My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:
1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/
2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.
3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.
The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.
1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.
2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.
3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).
4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.
I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.
However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.
We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.
The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:
1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.
2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.
Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:
His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.
In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level.
Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that.
My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:
1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/
2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.
3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.
The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.
1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.
2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.
3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).
4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.
I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.
However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.
We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.
The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:
1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.
2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.
Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:
His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.
In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level.
Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that.
My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:
1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/
2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.
3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.
The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.
1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.
2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.
3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).
4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.
I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.
However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.
We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.
The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:
1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.
2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.
Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:
His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.
In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level.
Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that.
That was a horrible video; at no point did Stewart blame BRI so not worth watching
Not picking on you BRI, but the question I and others are asking is HOW does this ban lead to improving our immigration vetting and WHY can't that be done without a unilateral ban? It seems like we can review our immigration procedures and improve our vetting without this ban. I am also not seeing any actual evidence for the direct threat every one of these countries poses.
I'm not trying to belabor the point or pick on you. I just see there being a difference between improving our vetting VS banning immigration/travel. There is nothing that is connecting one to the other atm...
-
These people are just trying to make a living. Have you tried living in the D.C. area on the paltry income given to these civil servants?
Seriously though, those private equity offers aren't going to purchase themselves. It's market stimulus...
/s
-
1
-
-
It's basically the 2017 version of the pony posse
Can't believe the site is allowing this type of thing again. Should be fun to watch at least
-
You and the press are using the word Ban!While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.
Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban?
Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites.
If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik
Thanks for that Colo, so need I say more? Is there a reason I need to speak further on this. It points at a fault, a point of weakness. Maybe vetting him, would not have impacted 9/11. Maybe it will prevent another 9/11 in the future. OH WAIT, they are not on the list of countries who are risky.
We should do no more than we already are, it's all good.
Europe says hello!
I am asking how the case you identified is related to this thread? Europe does not define our immigration policy(s), so again that has nothing to do with it other emoting.
As I have stated, I am all for improving our vetting process. Can you give an example how this does that? Also, how does this immigration ban improve or change the situation with Malik?
-
Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.
So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?
ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.
OK...I can handle that.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.
I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.
Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.
I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.
-
While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.
Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban?
Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites.
If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik
-
1
-
-
First of all, it's not temporary for Syria, the country whose citizens need our help more than anyone.
I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population?
Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries.
I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally.
Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond.
There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:
1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.
2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.
3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.
4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.
I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.
re: the bolded, what do these have anything to do with Trump's refugee ban? It is easy for bad people to enter our country, period. Forget illegally. They can get here on tourist visas with tremendous ease. They're not trying to pose as refugees or immigrate - that's way more work and way more difficult. Further, Obama actually did quite a bit. I see a lot of conservatives on Facebook referencing his Iraq refugee halt in 2011, which was in response to an actual terrorist threat in the states, and resulted in a revamp of our now extremely thorough and effective vetting procedures.
Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion?
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy
http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first.
Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues.
As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole.
Your position is that because some countries in Europe have problems with those countries, the US has to BAN ALL travel & immigration for ANYONE associated with those countries until the US determines IF our vetting needs to be changed? This is your opinion despite the high success rate of this vetting?
Again, I am not saying it is perfect and by all means, lets look at improving our immigration vetting procedures. Nothing has been provided that indicates this type of ban is needed for improvement to take place. Nor is there any quantitative evidence the ban is needed to address an immediate or imminent threat.
Do we have to shut down the Treasury while the IRS implements changes to tax code? Do we have to shut down all police enforcement from a department while we investigate an officer? Do we close school districts while we review student achievement scores? Do we stop all interstate narcotics enforcement while the DEA reviews states legalizing marijuana?
The idea this ban is anything but racist policy is laughable given how few of the "bad element" have made it through...
-
2
-
-
The tricky part about following the Patriots blueprint is finding the best coach and best QB ever.
I thought the article would focus more on spygate, deflategate, headsetgate, PEDSgate, walkthroughgate... lol
-
1
-
-
It'll put hair in all sorts of places...
I have a couple friends that are huge on Islay so I've had to learn to drink it but it's not my first choice. This Laphroaig 18 is very enjoyable and worth a try, though; it's mellowed a ton and it has a great balance. This bottle will be a lifetime supply, tho
-
More or less they were told to enforce the EO regardless and only POTUS could direct otherwise
This seems unconstitutional...
That's a SIGNIFICANT -- but potentially quite temporary -- victory. Wow, well done to the ACLU.
It's still significant, but when I posted this, I was under the impression that the EO had been eviscerated. Learning since that it's been almost untouched is sobering.
I think it could be if say, one airport ignored the court order. If it was a verbal directive, there is too much wiggle room for misinterpretation. Ultimately control of enforcement powers could become an issue...
Pretty cool you could go out last night Colo. Did your attorney friend say anything about the possibility of a wrongful termination suit in the even people are fired? Seems to me that people shouldn't be fired for following an order from one of our three branches of gov't aimed squarely at them. But I know no more law than anyone else here, for sure.
Random: I heard someone refer to him as "Twitler" the other day. I rather like that.
We didn't discuss it directly but if a Federal agency cleans house, there are way to do it and avoid most of the lawsuits. In a right to work state, not giving a reason for the release/termination is perfectly valid and creates a large burden on the former employee(s). Otherwise, they would just try to get the employees to quit. These agency's conduct policies could come into play and they are "temporarily" demoted while they are retrained. They could the transfer/informal demotion/etc card as well. If the culling targeted only management levels, that would help keep the numbers down.
Waking up this morning, I am convinced this was a calculated "test run" by Trump's administration as much as anything else.
-
It's unfair MLB 51 doesn't have better company in this thread... Protest drunk
-
1
-
-
Got this as a gift couple months ago and finally got around to opening it tonight. Definitely was a good night for it
.The peat & smoke are way less forward compared to even the Laphroaig 15 and very balanced. Not at all what I was expecting from Laphroaig. It's an excellent balanced single malt. Definitely one of my favorite Islay Single Malt and a must try.
-
Ummmm - who else suffered during the holocaust?
These people need to pick up a history book, or go to one of the MANY museums just down the street there in DC.
It's true that Jews weren't the only ones to suffer from the Nazi extermination efforts. This is not factually inaccurate:
Hicks provided a link to a Huffington Post UK story noting that while 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, 5 million others were also slaughtered during Adolf Hitler's genocide, including "priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters."
That's still a remarkably poor excuse to gloss over the astonishing suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazi regime. By all means, name everyone. But don't give an inch to the anti-Semites and the Holocaust deniers.
Let's just say the Nazi's targeted as many non-Jews as Jews in their extermination campaign. That still means Jews were still the single-largest affected demographic by many orders-of-magnitude. In this version of the estimates, the Nazi's STILL surpass any possible measure of deplorable-ness.
Now ignoring the impact and suffering of Jews, that's one of those "just when you can't get any lower". I am always astounded by the Holocaust deniers ignorance.
What would make people feel less ostracized from P&R?
in Politics & Religion
Posted
Obama gets a bad wrap over that. GW set the course on letting them off the hook before Obama got sworn in with the way the bailout was structured. As a result there wasn't much Obama could do that wouldn't end up being an economic nuclear option. The Repub's were also hell-bent on not breaking up any of the banks which sorely is needed...