You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
- Pdxfashionpioneer
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
- Location: Portland, OR, USA
You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
Oldsalt1, I am sorry that you and your comrades in arms did not get a better welcome home. As a nation we were so inexperienced in protesting a war, that we took our outrage out on all of you who had in good faith put your lives on the line to serve our country. As a person who protested the war, I apologize for that. For what it's worth, the Vietnam War National Monument on the Washington, DC Mall was built long before the World War II monument was even designed.
It is more than fair to call the President's ban a ban, it was what he and his Press Secretary referred to it as until they decided to call it something else.
Clearly it is directed at Muslims because there is that clumsy wording in it allowing 'members of minority religions from those countries' to get a pass. Pres. Trump made it crystal clear this Executive Order/Action was put out to fulfill his campaign promise to ban Muslims. One of the chief absurdities of this fiasco is that the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, did a study of terrorist attacks in the US from 1975-2015. The total number of Americans killed by terrorists coming from those seven countries during that time period is 0. The combined number killed by terrorists from Middle Eastern nations that the Trump Organization has done business in is nearly 3,000. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that NONE of those countries are among the seven listed.
I also have to ask, along with the press corps, what was the rush? What makes anyone think this will make us one iota safer? Why do this when so many experts on that area agree that such a ban plays into the hands of the jihadists by demonstrating that the US indeed singles out Muslims and thereby gives credence that their unholy war is a clash of civilizations?
Considering that on average it takes a refugee two years to prove their claim and be approved for immigration, how much more vetting does Trump want? And if enhanced vetting was the purpose why wasn't the implementation of the order delayed until such a process could be created? It sure wasn't done in 8 days!
We do have to give our new President credit, he has achieved a more that 50% disapproval rating faster than any other new President. Even George W. needed several months to hit that figure; Trump did it in just 8 days!!!
It is more than fair to call the President's ban a ban, it was what he and his Press Secretary referred to it as until they decided to call it something else.
Clearly it is directed at Muslims because there is that clumsy wording in it allowing 'members of minority religions from those countries' to get a pass. Pres. Trump made it crystal clear this Executive Order/Action was put out to fulfill his campaign promise to ban Muslims. One of the chief absurdities of this fiasco is that the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, did a study of terrorist attacks in the US from 1975-2015. The total number of Americans killed by terrorists coming from those seven countries during that time period is 0. The combined number killed by terrorists from Middle Eastern nations that the Trump Organization has done business in is nearly 3,000. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that NONE of those countries are among the seven listed.
I also have to ask, along with the press corps, what was the rush? What makes anyone think this will make us one iota safer? Why do this when so many experts on that area agree that such a ban plays into the hands of the jihadists by demonstrating that the US indeed singles out Muslims and thereby gives credence that their unholy war is a clash of civilizations?
Considering that on average it takes a refugee two years to prove their claim and be approved for immigration, how much more vetting does Trump want? And if enhanced vetting was the purpose why wasn't the implementation of the order delayed until such a process could be created? It sure wasn't done in 8 days!
We do have to give our new President credit, he has achieved a more that 50% disapproval rating faster than any other new President. Even George W. needed several months to hit that figure; Trump did it in just 8 days!!!
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer
Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
- oldsalt1
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 2470
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
The president's first and primary responsibility is to protect the country. We don't know exactly who has come into the country in the last few months. And if you think they (whomever you consider they are) aren't planning to enter the country you are wrong. You can't vett these people because the records are not available. What if the terrorist who was going to blow up the establishment in your town was planning to be on the next flight in. When is enough enough And as far as attacking Muslims. The terrorist attacks both here and around the world were instigated by who ? Catholics Jews maybe Menonites
And in your listings of news sources. you have not listed anything but left leaning organizations. CNN choices for respondents to show their "FAIRNESS" are chosen to place the other sides view in a poor light. AS for the NY times. It has lost its credibility it does not restrict its political commentary to the oped page go over the anti President Trump stories they have all been front page stories. While as usual any retractions or corrections of errors are listed just under real estate listings
And in your listings of news sources. you have not listed anything but left leaning organizations. CNN choices for respondents to show their "FAIRNESS" are chosen to place the other sides view in a poor light. AS for the NY times. It has lost its credibility it does not restrict its political commentary to the oped page go over the anti President Trump stories they have all been front page stories. While as usual any retractions or corrections of errors are listed just under real estate listings
-
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:16 am
- Location: UK
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
Aside from the 11 September attacks, I suspect you've (i.e. Americans) suffered more from proven internal attacks, i.e. by your own born and bred (e.g. Timothy McVeigh, etc), than from anything external.oldsalt1 wrote:The president's first and primary responsibility is to protect the country. We don't know exactly who has come into the country in the last few months. And if you think they (whomever you consider they are) aren't planning to enter the country you are wrong. You can't vett these people because the records are not available. What if the terrorist who was going to blow up the establishment in your town was planning to be on the next flight in. When is enough enough And as far as attacking Muslims. The terrorist attacks both here and around the world were instigated by who ? Catholics Jews maybe Menonites
And in your listings of news sources. you have not listed anything but left leaning organizations. CNN choices for respondents to show their "FAIRNESS" are chosen to place the other sides view in a poor light. AS for the NY times. It has lost its credibility it does not restrict its political commentary to the oped page go over the anti President Trump stories they have all been front page stories. While as usual any retractions or corrections of errors are listed just under real estate listings
As far as terrorism is concerned, there have been extremist groups affiliating themselves with various Christian denominations around the world, including Catholics - notably the IRA who were often supported by the USA.
It could be argued that there is Jewish incited terrorism, perpetrated by Israel against its neighbours in contravention of various UN missives and again, often supported by USA.
The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Saudi Arabian nationals, I believe.
And in many parts of the world, American "intervention" could be considered to be terrorism. It's a matter of perception. None of our countries are perfect.
As regards news and information, have a look at this thread for sources of information.
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
I believe the Beeb Beeb Ceeb was mentioned but unfortunately it isn't the unbiased institution it once was. It seems to have developed a very distinct left lean, greater than that of that tower at Pisa, to it and no longer has full respect. It has come under a lot of criticism the past few years. Even so I watch the BBC news as I like the presentation better than the other channels.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
-
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:16 am
- Location: UK
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
If you are referring to the list of sites for news material I posted, you will note that I stated it unlikely you'll find anything free from any bias.Sinned wrote:I believe the Beeb Beeb Ceeb was mentioned but unfortunately it isn't the unbiased institution it once was. It seems to have developed a very distinct left lean, greater than that of that tower at Pisa, to it and no longer has full respect. It has come under a lot of criticism the past few years. Even so I watch the BBC news as I like the presentation better than the other channels.
I, too, place less trust in "Auntie" [0] than in years of old. By reading from the various sites you can get an alternative perspective; e.g. the Russian annexation of Crimea was an interesting read on Russia Today and Al Jazeera! Although RT was, unsurprisingly, on Russia's side with that news, it is sometimes critical of Russian internal politics, which makes things very interesting.
[0] an old and endearing term of reference for the BBC.
- crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 14433
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
On "news" services, I find it interesting that some folks find CNN left-leaning and others sense that it's right-leaning.
CNN back in the Ted Turner days was vastly better than it is today, and today I regard it with the same disdain as I do the likes of Rush Limbaugh and clones.
NPR is definitely left-leaning -- especially in its radio-talk-show formats which I find as thoroughly dyspeptic as Fox "News". The New York Times is also hard-left, and has been for most of my existence on this pitiful little rock. The Wall Street Journal can be interesting as it's the paper of the Oligarchs, as can be the Financial Times.
The point here is that all "news" publications tailor their coverage to their target market, and they do this to sell copy (The Daily Mail comes to mind.).
I'm still tempted to dig out my short-wave radio and see if I can get anything on it (being about a thousand yards from a high-powered and astonishingly dirty commercial transmitter) just, to, perhaps find that it remains the vast wilderness of preachers that it was when last I switched it on. It was the various State-sponsored stations that were always the most interesting -- if for no other reason than the bias was very easy to detect. CBC [1] was always a favourite (and easy to get), ABC [2] was another (but was a bear and only copyable at certain times of day), and Radio Havana usually had interesting bits on it (easy to get in spite of the jamming). There was the time I managed to snag a snippet of Radio Free Europe, likely on some sort of exotic multiple bounce, and quite possibly when it was still illegal for US citizens to listen to it [0] -- and was shocked to hear that the outbound propaganda sounded precisely like what could be read in the Boston Herald (a Murdoch rag, even back when it was a broadsheet); it's sad when a nation has to shove overt propaganda at its own populace.
So, don't implicitly trust any of them. Dump 'em all in a pot, stew it for a bit, and see what comes out. It'll still be bitter and likely smell like the mentioned-in-another-thread municipal sanitation facilities, but will likely be closer to what actually happened in the real world.
[0] The statute of limitations has long since run out; this was done on valve-based kit when I was still in junior high school.
[1] Canada
[2] Oz
CNN back in the Ted Turner days was vastly better than it is today, and today I regard it with the same disdain as I do the likes of Rush Limbaugh and clones.
NPR is definitely left-leaning -- especially in its radio-talk-show formats which I find as thoroughly dyspeptic as Fox "News". The New York Times is also hard-left, and has been for most of my existence on this pitiful little rock. The Wall Street Journal can be interesting as it's the paper of the Oligarchs, as can be the Financial Times.
The point here is that all "news" publications tailor their coverage to their target market, and they do this to sell copy (The Daily Mail comes to mind.).
I'm still tempted to dig out my short-wave radio and see if I can get anything on it (being about a thousand yards from a high-powered and astonishingly dirty commercial transmitter) just, to, perhaps find that it remains the vast wilderness of preachers that it was when last I switched it on. It was the various State-sponsored stations that were always the most interesting -- if for no other reason than the bias was very easy to detect. CBC [1] was always a favourite (and easy to get), ABC [2] was another (but was a bear and only copyable at certain times of day), and Radio Havana usually had interesting bits on it (easy to get in spite of the jamming). There was the time I managed to snag a snippet of Radio Free Europe, likely on some sort of exotic multiple bounce, and quite possibly when it was still illegal for US citizens to listen to it [0] -- and was shocked to hear that the outbound propaganda sounded precisely like what could be read in the Boston Herald (a Murdoch rag, even back when it was a broadsheet); it's sad when a nation has to shove overt propaganda at its own populace.
So, don't implicitly trust any of them. Dump 'em all in a pot, stew it for a bit, and see what comes out. It'll still be bitter and likely smell like the mentioned-in-another-thread municipal sanitation facilities, but will likely be closer to what actually happened in the real world.
[0] The statute of limitations has long since run out; this was done on valve-based kit when I was still in junior high school.
[1] Canada
[2] Oz
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
-
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:32 am
- Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
An old newspaper editor friend of mine (please don't tell her I said old, she might hurt me ) says that if you tick off both sides equally, you're doing your job as a reporter.
-
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:05 pm
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
The President's first responsibility is to uphold and defend the Constitution. That's in the oath he swears at the inauguration. His executive order over the weekend is one of many attacks he has made on the constitution.oldsalt1 wrote:The president's first and primary responsibility is to protect the country.
What do you mean by that? Do you think that before this, the State dept and immigration didn't know who they had granted green cards and visas to?oldsalt1 wrote:We don't know exactly who has come into the country in the last few months.
Again, what do you mean? Yes, there are many groups trying to get in that have ideas of doing harm. One way is to come in under a diplomatic passport, if you remember, Obama threw out some of those a few weeks ago. The Intelligence agencies obviously knew who they were beforehand, it's useful to know that stuff so you can keep an eye on them and maybe feed them crap. Throwing them out was a way to limit their activities, and at the same time let them know that they aren't fooling us all the time. When vetting someone, if they don't have don't have records, they get more investigation until those granting the visa or green cards have reasonable certainty they pose no risk. The process for a green card takes years, and they are often unsuccessful.oldsalt1 wrote:And if you think they (whomever you consider they are) aren't planning to enter the country you are wrong. You can't vett these people because the records are not available.
If they are the same ones who did the world trade centre, maybe cutting off all contact with Saudi Arabia might help? Oh, we didn't ban them, wonder why not?oldsalt1 wrote:What if the terrorist who was going to blow up the establishment in your town was planning to be on the next flight in.
In Canada, we recently had a terrorist attack, bastard shot up people at prayer, killed 6, wounded 19, 2 of whom may still die. Who did it? A guy born in Canada. A white guy, who had espoused support for far right and White Supremacist causes. He had posted support for Le Pen and Donald Trump. And who were the targets? I have to ask why? And why now? Has someone been stirring up hate against that group?oldsalt1 wrote:When is enough enough And as far as attacking Muslims. The terrorist attacks both here and around the world were instigated by who ? Catholics Jews maybe Menonites
http://res.cloudinary.com/trs/image/upl ... q69y8n.jpg
-
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1733
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
- Location: West Midlands, England, UK
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
Ah, The Daily Mail. A nasty vile vituperative rag which breeds on and emphasises differences between cultures and people and encourages distrust, xenophobia and hate. No wonder it is also referred to as the daily Nazi or the Daily Fail.
I rarely get on with anyone who likes it.
I rarely get on with anyone who likes it.
-
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:16 am
- Location: UK
Re: You've got somewhere to go ... Political thread
That explains why I'm divorcedRay wrote:Ah, The Daily Mail. A nasty vile vituperative rag which breeds on and emphasises differences between cultures and people and encourages distrust, xenophobia and hate. No wonder it is also referred to as the daily Nazi or the Daily Fail.
I rarely get on with anyone who likes it.
* My emphasis on quotes.