ColoNoCoHusker

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. 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. 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...

I thought the article would focus more on spygate, deflategate, headsetgate, PEDSgate, walkthroughgate... lol

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

This seems unconstitutional... 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... 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

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.

It's true that Jews weren't the only ones to suffer from the Nazi extermination efforts. This is not factually inaccurate: 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.

I believe this is the Privacy Act in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974 That correct but here is the DOJ version updated for 2015... https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2015-edition The P.I.I. piece alone will have wide-ranging ramifications and end up being costly for lots of citizens. PII exists as part of every financial system as well every audit/industry information standard across numerous markets (HIPAA, FERPA, GLBA, PCI, etc). The direction I have heard so far is the exclusions are expected to be enforced. That is to say a non-citizen with a US credit card, the PII attached to the credit card CANNOT be encrypted without violating this. Similar interpretation to healthcare systems right now. Corporate America will fight this as the financial cost will easily be in the $Billions if this early direction holds.

Dulles, I wish... No, I was at Denver Int'l Airport... House cleaning more or less for those that didn't "follow orders"... He believes many of the supervisors/managers that respected the court order will be forced out or terminated for doing so by the current administration. This is based on statements made to the attorney by the HS or Customs supervisor(s). More or less they were told to enforce the E.O. regardless and only POTUS could direct otherwise... Emotions are running pretty high within these Federal agencies so it may just be paranoia but it feels like it's more than that. As with so many things right now, we'll have to see what happens and react to it as needed.

Spent some time at the protests at DIA. Only negative is that sometimes it feels like it takes the worst humanity has to offer to bring out our best... Truly impressive that so many people feel compelled to not sit by & watch; whether it is sharing opinions online or actively protesting, it all helps prevent this type of depravity from taking hold. After the restraining order was issued, I was able to have a great talk with a civil rights attorney that showed up to assist. We discussed a few things but the most interesting was the research Repub's have done in regards to ignoring Judicial Supremacy of the courts. I posted on this a while back but not finding it, atm. I am convinced we will soon see Trumps administration defy our courts ala Andrew Jackson's "you made your decision, now enforce" anecdote. Anyway, the attorney had met with Federal officials at DIA which resulted in the release of at least one foreign national being wrongfully detained (airline employee). Based his interactions, the attorney believed the Federal employees had been given verbal direction to ignore anything contradicting Trump's E.O. that didn't come directly from Trump's desk. The attorney agreed we will probably see a lot of Federal employees forced out after today's events... To Zoogs/Knapplc/NM11/Moiraine/dudeguyy/BigRed_inSD/ZRod and everyone else that have been so reasonable in P&R, I don't know you but I sincerely thank you! I thank you for taking a stand and voicing your opinion. I thank you for doing something, anything in this time of need for so many!

If there was something I liked better, I would be using it already... I'll see what I can do tho...

As with so many other folks here, this is a horrible matchup. As much as I like zoogs, there is just no way I can root for the Pat's to win. I have to root for Atlanta teams to lose, always every game and every sport. So there it is; I have to hope Atalanta loses and the Pat's don't win. I hate sports sometimes...

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort. Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back... And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better. EDIT: Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society. Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS. One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts. None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country. I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but they were still officially trying to keep people from entering the country. So having specific requirements an individual needs to meet to immigrate to this country is functionally equivalent to banning say ALL immigration into this country? I am not trying to be difficult, I just do not see how that is semantics... Managing immigration is way different than banning it. It is the difference between say having felony convictions or never being arrested... I appreciate your thoughts.

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort. Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back... And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better. EDIT: Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society. Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS. One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts. None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country.

Absolutely, zoogs. My Maverick comment was intended as sarcasm

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort. Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back... And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better. EDIT: Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

So basically it would be like if farmersonly.com and geek2geek.com had child website... EDIT: Redux beat me to it...

Here's a article discussing working-class exploitation of Coal Miners that continues to this day. Take it with a grain of salt but even then it's pretty deplorable: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/02/24/14289/labor-department-unveils-changes-aid-miners-black-lung-benefits-cases From the same time period (2014), here's an article discussing the Ludlow Massacre: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-ludlow-massacre-still-matters We are not as far removed these types of event as it seems sometimes. These usurpations have nothing to do with racism which is more than likely to become a major issue (again) as well...

If this McCain had showed up to the 2008 Presidential Election, I think the might have won... Glad to see Maverick is back

Then it is good that our long established system of government does not also have a long established history of violating the rights of its citizens or large groups of people. Things like slavery, race-based voter disenfranchisement, wholesale withdrawals of civil liberties, internment camps, persecution based on religious or political affiliation, mass expulsions, genocide of Native peoples, wrongful convictions, discrimination based on some arbitrary classification, etc. Are there gov't policies and laws in place today that discriminate against minorities? Seems to me that most forms of government sanctioned discrimination are against the law. As for our American history, sure this nation does not have a perfect record of providing equal rights to every group. But when America was founded, our early American ancestors experienced a nearly unprecedented amount of freedom. The common man could own land, come and go as he pleased, and had a voice in governance. It wasn't that way in Europe or any other spot on earth back then. I don't want to derail the thread but my examples are just looking back at the last ~150 years of US history. Remove slavery and we are talking about the last few decades. Looking at the widespread civil liberty & discrimination of the last 100 years, in most instances there were laws against them but it didn't stop politicians and government agencies at multiple levels from ignoring those laws. And the judiciary in our country has no enforcement powers... All our liberties depend on our citizenry, regardless of political party. All that is needed is for a few hundred politicians to look the other way on any issue for rights to be trampled. That's a very fine line...

If we close or roll back FDA regulations, this problem will probably solve itself... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canning

It's based on current technology.The author recognizes the heat from the nuclear reactors would literally melt it. If we wanted to KEEP it, I would imagine a few more 0's are needed... Here's the original Quora post if anyone wants to check out the discussion: https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-realistically-cost-to-build-an-Imperial-I-Class-Star-Destroyer

Then it is good that our long established system of government does not also have a long established history of violating the rights of its citizens or large groups of people. Things like slavery, race-based voter disenfranchisement, wholesale withdrawals of civil liberties, internment camps, persecution based on religious or political affiliation, mass expulsions, genocide of Native peoples, wrongful convictions, discrimination based on some arbitrary classification, etc.

The USA can weather Mexico hating us. However, Mexico's exports can be sent elsewhere pretty easily. China has been trying for 20 years to improve its trade relationship with Mexico & Central America. I don't think Mexico's economy is nearly as dependent on the USA as many Americans would believe. Strategically, part of the Mexican Federal agenda since the 1930s has been diminishing reliance on the USA. The US is heavily reliant on Mexican labor for agriculture. Most of our winter produce comes from Mexico or directly relies on Mexican labor. If we don't have that source of labor, we're either going without food or paying $5 for a head of iceberg lettuce. EDIT: I also forgot that over the last few years, CEMEX has taken control of the USA aggregate & cement markets. Would love to see what happens when Mexico hikes the price of cement-based building materials to offset the tariffs. This could get interesting fast...