It is currently Fri Jan 24, 2025 1:22 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » SHOWS & MEDIA » SHOUTOUTS!!

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 5
  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
long time guy
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Spaulding wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Democrats have lost their way. I don't think an emphasis on progressive ideas is the way to go but if that is where the energy in the party happens to be then they have to go with it.


I think Progressive ideas are the way to go. They have to be reasonable. They should be implemented carefully and thoughtfully so they can be successful. This idea of being 100% on board with everything someone wants to do and celebrate it is absurd and not achievable. There has to be compromise, people will not get everything they want or at least, sometimes, not all at once. People can't lose their shit over it.



Progressives have a my way or the highway approach when it comes to governing. Any deviation will be viewed as a sellout of their core principles.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
denisdman
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33210
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
leashyourkids wrote:
denisdman wrote:
I can't stand Trump. Said it from the get go. But I'll tell you what is more annoying, and I suspect it the reason places like WI and PA voted for Trump- I am sick and tired of hearing about white privilege, race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like. It's a damn near obsession among many. And that includes folks on both ends of the spectrum.


It certainly had an impact, and I think it's why Sanders was appreciated by many Conservatives even though his economic philosophy is the opposite of theirs... His was not a message based on identity.


When I hear white privilege, it just diminishes what a lot of us went through to get where we're at. And in my family, many have the same trouble afflicting all communities- unemployment, foreclosures, divorces, paycheck to paycheck living, etc.

I am onboard with the idea that society is unfair and the deck is stacked against some more than others. But you aren't pulling me to your side with the megaphone of white privilege complaints.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You
Top
 Profile  
 
Spaulding
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33863
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
long time guy wrote:

Progressives have a my way or the highway approach when it comes to governing. Any deviation will be viewed as a sellout of their core principles.


Then it won't work but that's not everybody else's fault, it's their own. You can't blame people for not getting on board with that train of thought. You can't behave that way in most personal relationships. I don't know why they would find that acceptable to do anywhere. If anything it will turn more people against you.
Top
 Profile  
 
Curious Hair
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56505
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Democrats have lost their way. I don't think an emphasis on progressive ideas is the way to go


What is the way to go? Cultural liberalism paired with ruthless capitalism? "For every working-class voter we lose we'll pick up two suburban Republicans"?


An emphasis on quasi Socialism is never going to be a winner.


New Deal? Great Society? You still didn't give an answer.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23318
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Curious Hair wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Democrats have lost their way. I don't think an emphasis on progressive ideas is the way to go


What is the way to go? Cultural liberalism paired with ruthless capitalism? "For every working-class voter we lose we'll pick up two suburban Republicans"?


An emphasis on quasi Socialism is never going to be a winner.


New Deal? Great Society? You still didn't give an answer.


More like a Great Leap.
Top
 Profile  
 
denisdman
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33210
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
China owns the Great Leap (Forward) I believe.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23318
pizza_Place: Giordano's
denisdman wrote:
China owns the Great Leap (Forward) I believe.


REDISTRIBUTES JUST FINE
Top
 Profile  
 
denisdman
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33210
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
denisdman wrote:
China owns the Great Leap (Forward) I believe.


REDISTRIBUTES JUST FINE


Except China has a higher Gini coefficient than us. So not fine.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Curious Hair wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Democrats have lost their way. I don't think an emphasis on progressive ideas is the way to go


What is the way to go? Cultural liberalism paired with ruthless capitalism? "For every working-class voter we lose we'll pick up two suburban Republicans"?


An emphasis on quasi Socialism is never going to be a winner.


New Deal? Great Society? You still didn't give an answer.


I didnt have a problem with either. I don't think big govt is necessarily evil. I also don't begrudge the money class either. There has to be a mixture

I don't want to see a return to Reaganomics which is what Trump is offerring

I don't want to see a system where govt subsidization is found in almost every entity. The New Deal occurred as a result of the Great Depression. There was a need for subsidization because of the ineffectiveness of private industry.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
denisdman wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
denisdman wrote:
I can't stand Trump. Said it from the get go. But I'll tell you what is more annoying, and I suspect it the reason places like WI and PA voted for Trump- I am sick and tired of hearing about white privilege, race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like. It's a damn near obsession among many. And that includes folks on both ends of the spectrum.


It certainly had an impact, and I think it's why Sanders was appreciated by many Conservatives even though his economic philosophy is the opposite of theirs... His was not a message based on identity.


When I hear white privilege, it just diminishes what a lot of us went through to get where we're at. And in my family, many have the same trouble afflicting all communities- unemployment, foreclosures, divorces, paycheck to paycheck living, etc.

I am onboard with the idea that society is unfair and the deck is stacked against some more than others. But you aren't pulling me to your side with the megaphone of white privilege complaints.



White privilege does exist but like anything else there is a problem when generalizations are used to describe it.

The last two Republican candidates for President are prime examples of it. Do you really think that Trump or G.W. would have achieved what they have achieved without it?

Does it apply to every white person that has ever lived? No it doesn't but when you discuss each and every lever of power in this country it is controlled by a white person. It was not accomplished simply by hard work and grittiness either. It is also a slap in the face to other groups and a backhanded way of promoting pre existing stereotypes regarding laziness.

We need to quit with the pretenses. It doesn't make a person a race baiter or anything else for basically stating the obvious.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93199
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
denisdman wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
denisdman wrote:
I can't stand Trump. Said it from the get go. But I'll tell you what is more annoying, and I suspect it the reason places like WI and PA voted for Trump- I am sick and tired of hearing about white privilege, race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like. It's a damn near obsession among many. And that includes folks on both ends of the spectrum.


It certainly had an impact, and I think it's why Sanders was appreciated by many Conservatives even though his economic philosophy is the opposite of theirs... His was not a message based on identity.


When I hear white privilege, it just diminishes what a lot of us went through to get where we're at. And in my family, many have the same trouble afflicting all communities- unemployment, foreclosures, divorces, paycheck to paycheck living, etc.

I am onboard with the idea that society is unfair and the deck is stacked against some more than others. But you aren't pulling me to your side with the megaphone of white privilege complaints.



White privilege does exist but like anything else there is a problem when generalizations are used to describe it.

The last two Republican candidates for President are prime examples of it. Do you really think that Trump or G.W. would have achieved what they have achieved without it?

Does it apply to every white person that has ever lived? No it doesn't but when you discuss each and every lever of power in this country it is controlled by a white person. It was not accomplished simply by hard work and grittiness either. It is also a slap in the face to other groups and a backhanded way of promoting pre existing stereotypes regarding laziness.

We need to quit with the pretenses. It doesn't make a person a race baiter or anything else for basically stating the obvious.

Trump and GW are more rich privilege than white privilege. 99.9 percent of white people couldn't follow their paths either.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
WaitingforRuffcorn
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
You are all over the place LTG. You want "equal opportunity" yet you are against wealth redistribution via the government. What law should be changed to offer "equal opportunity" that currently does not exist?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.
Top
 Profile  
 
JORR
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:39 am 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80167
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
long time guy wrote:
Spaulding wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Democrats have lost their way. I don't think an emphasis on progressive ideas is the way to go but if that is where the energy in the party happens to be then they have to go with it.


I think Progressive ideas are the way to go. They have to be reasonable. They should be implemented carefully and thoughtfully so they can be successful. This idea of being 100% on board with everything someone wants to do and celebrate it is absurd and not achievable. There has to be compromise, people will not get everything they want or at least, sometimes, not all at once. People can't lose their shit over it.



Progressives have a my way or the highway approach when it comes to governing. Any deviation will be viewed as a sellout of their core principles.


It seems like you believe in the Republican Party from a philosophical standpoint and you simply wish it were run by black people.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Spaulding wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Democrats have lost their way. I don't think an emphasis on progressive ideas is the way to go but if that is where the energy in the party happens to be then they have to go with it.


I think Progressive ideas are the way to go. They have to be reasonable. They should be implemented carefully and thoughtfully so they can be successful. This idea of being 100% on board with everything someone wants to do and celebrate it is absurd and not achievable. There has to be compromise, people will not get everything they want or at least, sometimes, not all at once. People can't lose their shit over it.



Progressives have a my way or the highway approach when it comes to governing. Any deviation will be viewed as a sellout of their core principles.


It seems like you believe in the Republican Party from a philosophical standpoint and you simply wish it were run by black people.



Nope. Republican orthodoxy is at its core too divisive. It seeks to divide and when one speaks of "conservatism" it in of itself is a sort of dog whistle. What exactly is it that they are trying to conserve? Get it from an economic standpoint but what of it from a cultural standpoint? Historical standpoint?

I think that it should be more inclusive and I would not be in favor of it if it were run by blacks. I'm not a black apologist. I'm critical of blacks too.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
JORR
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:06 am 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80167
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
long time guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Spaulding wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Democrats have lost their way. I don't think an emphasis on progressive ideas is the way to go but if that is where the energy in the party happens to be then they have to go with it.


I think Progressive ideas are the way to go. They have to be reasonable. They should be implemented carefully and thoughtfully so they can be successful. This idea of being 100% on board with everything someone wants to do and celebrate it is absurd and not achievable. There has to be compromise, people will not get everything they want or at least, sometimes, not all at once. People can't lose their shit over it.



Progressives have a my way or the highway approach when it comes to governing. Any deviation will be viewed as a sellout of their core principles.


It seems like you believe in the Republican Party from a philosophical standpoint and you simply wish it were run by black people.



Nope.


:lol: I was half-ass kidding, I just think you're misguided in the belief that the best thing for the Democratic Party is for it to be GOP Lite.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Spaulding wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Democrats have lost their way. I don't think an emphasis on progressive ideas is the way to go but if that is where the energy in the party happens to be then they have to go with it.


I think Progressive ideas are the way to go. They have to be reasonable. They should be implemented carefully and thoughtfully so they can be successful. This idea of being 100% on board with everything someone wants to do and celebrate it is absurd and not achievable. There has to be compromise, people will not get everything they want or at least, sometimes, not all at once. People can't lose their shit over it.



Progressives have a my way or the highway approach when it comes to governing. Any deviation will be viewed as a sellout of their core principles.


It seems like you believe in the Republican Party from a philosophical standpoint and you simply wish it were run by black people.



Nope.


:lol: I was half-ass kidding, I just think you're misguided in the belief that the best thing for the Democratic Party is for it to be GOP Lite.



Here is the reason I'm anti Progressive. For years I saw Progressives lose election after election. Democratic Party as a national Party was dead until Clinton came along. It looked as though Reaganite Republicans were going to create a dynasty.

Liberals were horse collared with the same tag that you see today. EAST/West coast elites out of touch with middle America. I don't want a return to that. I believe in pragmatism. I don't want a bunch of guys promising things that they can't deliver.

If we get the Progressive Era again that is exactly what is going to happen in my opinion

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Peoria Matt
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22704
pizza_Place: A few...
long time guy wrote:
EAST/West coast elites out of touch with middle America. I don't want a return to that.


I think they are at that point right now.
Top
 Profile  
 
Curious Hair
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56505
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Liberals were horse collared with the same tag that you see today. EAST/West coast elites out of touch with middle America. I don't want a return to that. I believe in pragmatism.


But right now the Democrats are pragmatism as delivered by out-of-touch coastal elites, and that's what seems to have been rejected out of hand. "Will breaking up big banks end racism and sexism? NO!" was such an ill-advised moment for your mom, because either people who have been screwed by big banks are too knee-deep in the shit to care about racism/sexism, or they do care and they see breaking up big banks as a means toward that end.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.
Top
 Profile  
 
rogers park bryan
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Equality of opportunity. Can't erase history and really not looking for a redress either. When we elect a President as overtly racist as Trump it is rather difficult to place the sin of slavery and Jim Crow in the rear view mirror. It is funny now to hear commentators talk about how he is doing now what he said he'd do. He preached xenophobia and racism yet people argued that a large portion of support didn't come from it. Ok.

It is one thing to dismiss the blacks who stand on street corners and sell drugs, rob, steal, and kill. It is quite another to dismiss those that have gone about doing things the "right way". Guys like Trump never provide a distinction. When he was quoted as saying "he hates the fact that blacks have to count his money" he wasn't talking about the guy likely to deal with national guardsmen. He was referencing the guy likely to be a CPA.

When you have people essentially say that they don't care that he is a racist and xenophobe, then the window to discuss racism must continously be opened. Blacks don't have the luxury of overlooking this stuff. In my younger days I tried to dismiss it but experiences have forced me to pay more attention than maybe I'd have originally preferred.



What you say about Trump may actually be true, the problem is similar things have been said about every Republican president/candidate for as long as I can remember. Just screaming Nazi/Racist at everyone you disagree with really isn't productive.


Then why does it keep happening?


Half the country is angry that Hillary Clinton lost and they hate Trump. It's not really about policy. Otherwise they would have been storming the airports when Obama shut down Iraqi refugees/immigration. And they'll talk around the fact that they didn't protest that or even mention it and didn't say a fucking word when Obama was droning the shit out those seven countries with tearful squealing about how Trump is "different". It rings hollow. It's phony baloney. Trump is different because they didn't vote for him.

You see Trump's attempted ban and Obama's as the same thing?

I dont see it. Very different circumstances and actions.


Not sure if politico is dismissed as biased but this article makes sense to me

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... on-restri/
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23318
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Not sure if politico is dismissed as biased but this article makes sense to me

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... on-restri/


Quote:
In 2011, there was a specific threat

First, Obama’s suspension was in direct response to a failed plot by Iraqi nationals living in Bowling Green, Ky., to send money, explosives and weapons to al-Qaida. The two men were arrested by the FBI in May 2011 for actions committed in Iraq and trying to assist overseas terrorist groups.

Both had entered the United States as refugees after lying about their past terrorism ties on paperwork. One man worked as a bombmaker in Iraq, and the FBI even matched his fingerprints to an unexploded IED discovered in 2005 in Iraq, raising questions about the thoroughness of the vetting process.

Trump’s ban, meanwhile, is more preemptive. As PolitiFact reported, no refugee or immigrant from any of the seven countries targeted by the ban has been implicated in any fatal terrorist attack in the United States, though perpetrators of at least three non-deadly cases were connected to Iran or Somalia.


So, we're at the "well, if you ignore the multiple attacks by emigres from 2 of the countries on the list, as well as the multitude of attacks by emigres from those nations committed abroad...it's preemptive, and not reactive to a specific threat" point. That seems like sound, unbiased, reasoning. If only because the impetus of Trump's order is painted as dissimilar because they were only "non-deadly cases", when Obama's order was born from a failed plot. TIL a failed plot is more of a "specific threat" than three completed attacks.

The point about the narrowly-tailored nature of Obama's order as opposed to the breadth of Trump's is entirely valid, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama and Trump had the same intent in crafting their orders, nor does it change the similarity of the desired effect by both orders. When you start needing to grasp at "innocent American citizens were only stabbed, sliced, and hit by a moving motor vehicle, they weren't shot and killed," you've entered "biased" territory.
Top
 Profile  
 
rogers park bryan
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Right so even dismissing the preventative vs reaction difference the actual ban was much different.

Iraqi refugees were nonetheless admitted to the United States during the 2011 suspension while Trump has put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.


Yes, many are protesting because it's Trump. Just like many opposed certain things specifically because it was Obama.

But to say "Obama did the same thing" (Ive seen that many places) is just not true
Top
 Profile  
 
leashyourkids
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Not sure if politico is dismissed as biased but this article makes sense to me

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... on-restri/


Quote:
In 2011, there was a specific threat

First, Obama’s suspension was in direct response to a failed plot by Iraqi nationals living in Bowling Green, Ky., to send money, explosives and weapons to al-Qaida. The two men were arrested by the FBI in May 2011 for actions committed in Iraq and trying to assist overseas terrorist groups.

Both had entered the United States as refugees after lying about their past terrorism ties on paperwork. One man worked as a bombmaker in Iraq, and the FBI even matched his fingerprints to an unexploded IED discovered in 2005 in Iraq, raising questions about the thoroughness of the vetting process.

Trump’s ban, meanwhile, is more preemptive. As PolitiFact reported, no refugee or immigrant from any of the seven countries targeted by the ban has been implicated in any fatal terrorist attack in the United States, though perpetrators of at least three non-deadly cases were connected to Iran or Somalia.


So, we're at the "well, if you ignore the multiple attacks by emigres from 2 of the countries on the list, as well as the multitude of attacks by emigres from those nations committed abroad...it's preemptive, and not reactive to a specific threat" point. That seems like sound, unbiased, reasoning. If only because the impetus of Trump's order is painted as dissimilar because they were only "non-deadly cases", when Obama's order was born from a failed plot. TIL a failed plot is more of a "specific threat" than three completed attacks.

The point about the narrowly-tailored nature of Obama's order as opposed to the breadth of Trump's is entirely valid, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama and Trump had the same intent in crafting their orders, nor does it change the similarity of the desired effect by both orders. When you start needing to grasp at "innocent American citizens were only stabbed, sliced, and hit by a moving motor vehicle, they weren't shot and killed," you've entered "biased" territory.


Well, you have to draw a line somewhere. Saying Trump's was "preventative" is a fancy way of saying that there is no specific threat from those countries so he can just place a blanket ban on anyone he wants. It's quite the slippery-slope. I'm sure American's have been attacked abroad by every country in the world. We going to "preemptively" ban them too?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby
Top
 Profile  
 
JORR
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:54 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80167
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Right so even dismissing the preventative vs reaction difference the actual ban was much different.

Iraqi refugees were nonetheless admitted to the United States during the 2011 suspension while Trump has put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.


Yes, many are protesting because it's Trump. Just like many opposed certain things specifically because it was Obama.

But to say "Obama did the same thing" (Ive seen that many places) is just not true


I think we're really parsing things to act as if it's radically different. And I think it's quite clear that a president has great Constitutional latitude to make such a decision.

What this comes down to is just another example of the American Left playing the dupe for radical Islam as evidenced by the constantly repeated lie that this is a #MuslimBan which it most certainly is not.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23318
pizza_Place: Giordano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Iraqi refugees were nonetheless admitted to the United States during the 2011 suspension while Trump has put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.


If Trump had merely ordered a 6-month moratorium on the State Department processing new refugees from these nations, instead of an explicit Executive Order, do you think people would be calling his actions into question?

Quote:
But to say "Obama did the same thing" (Ive seen that many places) is just not true


Ok, but that's not what Politifact was rejecting, they were rejecting Trump's statement about the similarity of his order to Obama's actions. They are, indeed, similar: born from reaction to similar threats, accomplished via similar means (targeting predominately Muslim nation[s], disproportionately affecting Muslims), and intending to accomplish similar things (keep Americans safe from would-be terrorists from nations currently producing a lot of terrorists). I think arguing "same" vs. "similar" in common usage is semanticizing at best, and disingenuous excuse-making at worst. If anything it should be more alarming that Obama's changes were secretive, and had the ultimate effect of suspending refugee acceptance without explicitly doing so, while Trump's is a publicly-available order.


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23318
pizza_Place: Giordano's
leashyourkids wrote:
Well, you have to draw a line somewhere. Saying Trump's was "preventative" is a fancy way of saying that there is no specific threat from those countries so he can just place a blanket ban on anyone he wants. It's quite the slippery-slope. I'm sure American's have been attacked abroad by every country in the world. We going to "preemptively" ban them too?


What Americans were attacked by Iraqi refugees when Obama effectively banned their processing in 2011? Because Americans have been attacked by people who emanated from Somalia and Iran.
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
You are all over the place LTG. You want "equal opportunity" yet you are against wealth redistribution via the government. What law should be changed to offer "equal opportunity" that currently does not exist?


Not laws but policies.

No more too big to fail.

I also want to see an end to the endless amount of corporate subsidization which occurs in this country. These factors alone amount to corporate socialism.

I want to see and end to tax policies that are designed to help guys like Trump avoid paying taxes.

I don't advocate for there to be a mass redistribution of wealth though. I don't demonize the wealthy I just think that the system shouldnt be rigged in a way which increases many of the advantages that they already enjoy.


When I speak of equality of opportunity I'm speaking mostly in terms of access. It pertains to having greater access to things that they are qualified for. It is not really related to providing a handout.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
leashyourkids
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Well, you have to draw a line somewhere. Saying Trump's was "preventative" is a fancy way of saying that there is no specific threat from those countries so he can just place a blanket ban on anyone he wants. It's quite the slippery-slope. I'm sure American's have been attacked abroad by every country in the world. We going to "preemptively" ban them too?


What Americans were attacked by Iraqi refugees when Obama effectively banned their processing in 2011? Because Americans have been attacked by people who emanated from Somalia and Iran.


Obama's was in response to a failed plot. Your assertion that that is similar to people being attacked by Somalia and Iran would only make sense if those were the only two countries Trump banned. You can say it's semantics to argue "similar" or "same", but it's really not, and it'd be a pretty lazy mindset. This is a complex issue, and similar and same are two entirely different things. To me, it just seems like an attempt to make them seem more similar than they really are.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23318
pizza_Place: Giordano's
leashyourkids wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Well, you have to draw a line somewhere. Saying Trump's was "preventative" is a fancy way of saying that there is no specific threat from those countries so he can just place a blanket ban on anyone he wants. It's quite the slippery-slope. I'm sure American's have been attacked abroad by every country in the world. We going to "preemptively" ban them too?


What Americans were attacked by Iraqi refugees when Obama effectively banned their processing in 2011? Because Americans have been attacked by people who emanated from Somalia and Iran.


Obama's was in response to a failed plot. Your assertion that that is similar to people being attacked by Somalia and Iran would only make sense if those were the only two countries Trump banned. You can say it's semantics to argue "similar" or "same", but it's really not, and it'd be a pretty lazy mindset. This is a complex issue, and similar and same are two entirely different things. To me, it just seems like an attempt to make them seem more similar than they really are.


Trump's ban perhaps being overbroad doesn't make it dissimilar from Obama's actions, as I've laid out a few times. Also, the "failed plot" was probably closer to "entrapment" by the FBI. Obama cast aspersion on thousands of Iraqi--likely Muslim--refugees by banning their acceptance into the country (at this point, that's, like, the exact same thing Trump is being accused of) because of a threat wholly created by another executive agency.
Top
 Profile  
 
leashyourkids
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Trump's ban perhaps being overbroad doesn't make it dissimilar from Obama's actions.


How far would you be willing to extend that logic?

You cool with him banning the entire Middle East? How about all of Eurasia?

To me, the being "overly broad" is the entire issue. I would never argue that the POTUS can't take action to keep dangerous individuals out of the country as long as there's an explicit reason that can be explained.

From what I know about the circumstances (which is certainly not everything), Obama's was about as legally narrow as he could make it. Trump's is overly broad with no specific reason as to why. I believe that's the main objection to his ban and also what led people to assume it was a Muslim ban.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
 Post subject: Re: Popovich
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
I'm loving all of the talk about him "doing exactly what he said he was going to do". This of course coming from the same group that once explicitly stated "that he doesn't really mean it".

Not anyone on this board don't think but definitely Trump supporters in the media.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 5
  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Board index » SHOWS & MEDIA » SHOUTOUTS!!

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group