ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [372] -- Not Funny Anymore

[ Posted Friday, December 11th, 2015 – 17:33 PST ]

Hillary Clinton is right. Last night, on Seth Meyers's late-night show, Clinton had this to say about Donald Trump's candidacy: "I no longer think he is funny." Earlier in the week, the Huffington Post announced that it was un-banishing Trump from the "Entertainment" section and would now properly cover him under "Politics." Arianna and Hillary are correct -- what started out as a hilarious joke is no longer even the slightest bit funny anymore.

Donald Trump has the best chance of becoming the Republican nominee for the highest office in the land. Actual voting begins in two months. So far, nothing he's said -- no matter how outlandish or outrageous -- has had any negative impact on his support. His poll numbers defy political gravity. So far, no attacks against him have worked, and the GOP candidates attacking him have actually gone down in the polls as a result.

Still, many within the confines of the Beltway cling desperately to the "magic implosion" theory, which might be summed up as: "Somehow Trump must implode. He has to, dammit!" Such magical thinking was on display this week from Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post, who wrote an entire article stating (based on not much more than one Iowa poll, and moonbeams) that Ted Cruz is "in the catbird seat" and the best-positioned to win the Republican nomination. This entire article almost completely ignores Donald Trump and his polling lead. It's a stunning display of head-in-the-sand thinking. It essentially starts with the premise "of course Trump won't win," and then takes off for the wild blue yonder from there.

Trump, in pretty much every recent poll, has over twice the support of his nearest competitor. Twice! This is slowly sinking in to the Republican establishment, but they still can't seem to come to grips with the most probable conclusion. They are worried that Trump will break off and mount a third-party campaign -- blithely assuming that he'll lose the Republican nomination (if he wins, he won't need a third party). At worst, the party elders are worried that Trump will force a brokered convention by winning a lot of delegates, but not enough to give him the nomination. That's their worst-case scenario, even though the obvious questions should now be: "Will the Republican Party itself split after Donald Trump secures the nomination? Will Bush/Cruz/Rubio/whomever launch their own third-party bid, and carry the Republican Party establishment with them? Will they stalk out of their own convention in Dixiecrat fashion?"

None of this is much fun for Republicans, one assumes, but they've truly brought this on themselves. Trump isn't so much making radically new suggestions, what he is actually doing is taking conservative Republican dogma to its obvious conclusion. Trump disdains the standard "dog-whistle" language, but his proposals are pretty close to what the party as a whole believes. This didn't happen overnight, and it was aided and abetted by the same people who are now wringing their hands over Trump.

It's not funny anymore -- it's getting closer and closer to becoming reality. Donald Trump, leader of the Republican Party. Deal with it, everyone.

Here's a quick measure of the truth of that claim: the week's political news is now divided -- and pretty equally -- into Trump news and non-Trump news. The big Trump news this week was, obviously, his brilliant plan to stop everyone at the border who is entering America, ask them: "Are you a Muslim?" and then not let in anyone who answers: "Yes." No, seriously, that is indeed how Trump would implement his new "temporary hold" on Muslims entering America. Jeb Bush, in an earlier bit of idiocy, had suggested that only Christians from the Middle East be allowed entry -- and, when pressed on how this would be implemented had only this to say: "You can tell when someone's a Christian." It's like Trump and Bush think it'd be a good idea for people to have to wear their religious symbols on their clothing, because we all know how well that worked out the last time around, right?

Most of the political news is similar -- other politicians reacting to what Trump has said. This, to us, still qualifies as "Trump news," we should mention. Ben Carson (remember him?) is desperately watching his poll numbers sink like a stone, so he tried to get on board the Trump train by threatening that if Trump leaves the Republicans for a third-party run, Carson might also bolt the party. Now wouldn't that be fun? Ben Carson on the Christian Soldiers Party ticket, Trump on the Make America Great Party ticket, and a Republican (to be named later) -- all facing off against the Democratic nominee. That would certainly be an election for the ages, to put it mildly.

Of course, watching Republicans twist in the wind trying to come up with a way to denounce Trump without offending his followers is pure schadenfreude for Democrats. Even the Republicans who spoke out against Trump's "bar the Muslims at the door" concept couldn't quite bring themselves to say they wouldn't eventually support him if he became the party's nominee. So what you get is: "Trump is wrong, he's un-American, he should be denounced by all... and if he wins enough primary states, I will support him 100 percent!" We've only heard of one national-level Republican (House member Reid Ribble from Wisconsin) clearly state an anti-Trump position: "My first oath is to the Constitution of the United States. Donald Trump has taken positions contrary to that document, so I could not support him and uphold my oath." Bravo, Representative Ribble! Must be lonely out there, eh?

Next week we'll get another round of debates from both parties, and the Republican one may be the last chance any candidate has of doing serious damage to Trump's poll numbers. So the sparks may fly! While the field of plausible Republican candidates is really down to four (as I argued earlier this week), some are still including Bush in with the frontrunners Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Marco Rubio. Even just those five would make for a more-focused evening, but it's looking like three other candidates will somehow also be included in primetime: Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul likely won't make the cut. Personally, we think it's time to tighten the rules even more, and just have the top five candidates on the stage, but then we're not in charge of the rules.

In non-election news, there's a battle going on in Iraq to retake Ramadi from the Islamic State. The Iraqi government forces (together with some militias) are steadily taking ground within the city itself, and America is even reportedly considering offering helicopter ground support to help flush the Islamic State fighters out of the rest of the city. This is a big deal, as if successful it will be the biggest defeat the Islamic State has yet suffered on the ground.

This is one of the few magical seasons of the year when Congress actually does the work they were supposed to be doing for all those many, many, many weeks they took off on vacation on the taxpayer's dime. A budget bill was supposed to be passed by today, but has been punted into the middle of next week. This is Speaker Paul Ryan's first big test, and so far it looks like he's shepherding the process along the way things used to work -- both sides offer up their ideas, then draw lines in the sand over certain items from the other's agenda. A whole lot of horsetrading will take place before next Wednesday, so keep an eye on what will be in the final bill, early next week. In the midst of all this, Nancy Pelosi managed to force a vote on restricting those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns, for political purposes (she lost the vote, of course). Watch for Democratic ads to feature this vote in next year's congressional races.

Up north, it is looking more and more like Canada is going to just go ahead and legalize recreational marijuana for all its adult citizens next year, fulfilling a campaign pledge from the new prime minister. Maybe weed flowing into America from our northern neighbor will prompt Donald Trump to build another "big, beautiful wall" across the Canadian border? One can only imagine.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

President Barack Obama, in the primetime Oval Office speech he gave last weekend, called on Congress to do their job and pass a war bill for Syria and Iraq. Congress has been eager to criticize the president's war plans, but very reluctant to actually weigh in themselves on the issue of how America should be conducting this war. This is shameful. It is an abdication of duty by Congress. If they won't get their own act together, then how can any member of Congress criticize what Obama is doing?

This issue cuts across party lines. Democrats don't want to vote on an Islamic State war bill (technically an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" or AUMF) because many of them were burned badly on their previous vote on the Iraq War (see: Clinton, Hillary). Republicans don't want to vote on a bill because they don't want to authorize anything President Obama does (good, bad, or indifferent). This is pathetic, on both sides.

We have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, one to Representative Peter Welch from Vermont and one to Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia. They, together with Republican counterparts Scott Rigell and Jeff Flake, have introduced an AUMF bill in both houses of Congress. For all the tough talk about what to do about the Islamic State threat, this is what Congress is constitutionally supposed to be doing. A fact more journalists should be aware of, we might add.

These bills have bipartisan sponsors. They are identical, which means that if the bill passes both houses it will arrive on President Obama's desk. Unfortunately, the bills are likely to go nowhere, because as the article points out: "Congressional leaders are still ignoring calls for a war authorization vote."

Still, for attempting to goad Congress into doing its most important national security job, as is its duty, Welch and Kaine should be applauded. Which is why both of them are getting the last MIDOTW award of 2015. More power to them. No matter what each congressman thinks of the current war effort, Congress should spell out specific instructions for how they'd like to see the war prosecuted. Anything short is dereliction of duty.

[Congratulate Representative Peter Welch on his House contact page, and Senator Tim Kaine on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

President Obama's Oval Office speech seemed to disappoint many, but we thought it did exactly what it was intended to do -- calm the public's fears down to realistic levels. Of course, the Obama speech was soon pushed aside after Trump unveiled his "ban the Muslims" idea, but we just can't say we were disappointed by Obama's speech, personally.

Instead, our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is a man who hasn't graced these pages in over 100 issues (he got his fifth MDDOTW way back in FTP [222]).

Rahm Emanuel, now the mayor of Chicago, seems politically doomed, one way or another. His administration was responsible for trying to bury -- going so far as to fight the public release of it in court -- the damning video of a cop shooting an African-American who was in no way threatening the cop. Rahm got away with this coverup for over a year -- and during that period, he successfully won re-election. It goes without saying that if the video had been released in a timely manner Rahm might not have gotten as many votes.

Now, we're not aware of any proof that Rahm himself was directing this coverup attempt or anything. Still, he is the mayor and what with the court case he must have at least been aware of what was going on. He has since fired the head of the Chicago police force, and gave a very emotional speech this week (choking up about the Utopia he'd like to see Chicago become), but none of that appears to be enough, at this point.

A recent poll put Rahm's job approval rating among city residents at a dismal 18 percent. A majority -- 51 percent -- now think Rahm Emanuel should resign. With numbers like that, Rahm's exit is almost certain. He may try to hang on and fight his way back, but at this point the more likely scenario is that he reluctantly steps down -- the only real question left is how long it'll be before he realizes it's his only remaining viable option.

We have to admit we're no fans of Rahm Emanuel, because we vividly remember his scathing disdain for the progressive media and the progressive base of his own party, while he was serving as President Obama's most-powerful aide. So we're not exactly shedding tears over Rahm's political fate or his political legacy. In fact, our feelings towards the mayor might best be expressed as: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Rahm." And, meanwhile, here's another MDDOTW award, as you get ready to leave.

[Contact Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel via the city's official webpage, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 372 (12/11/15)

Some program notes are in order before we begin. This will be the final FTP column of the year, as we enter our winter hiatus until January 8th. Instead, next week we'll present part one of our yearly awards column, with the bestest and the worstest of everything from 2015. So there's that to look forward to! Seeing as how Christmas (and New Year's Day) falls on a Friday, and seeing as how we tried writing Friday holiday columns once and then swore never to do it again, there will be no column at all for the last two Fridays of the year. Happy holidays, everyone, and allow us to mention once again that it is also our holiday pledge drive season! Because of the Friday holidays, part two of our year-end awards column will run the Wednesday before Christmas, December 23rd. Got all that? Next week, awards part one. Following Wednesday, awards part two. Christmas and New Year's Day, no column. See you back here January 8th!

OK, enough of that, let's get on with the show. Today's theme is, of course: "Donald Trump's candidacy is not funny anymore." Or maybe: "We're through the looking glass now." Or a Wizard Of Oz theme, perhaps? "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

However you put it, we're in for a whirlwind of a campaign, that's for sure. Things are almost guaranteed to get even crazier, at this point.

 

1
   A radicalized Christian terrorist

Before we get to all the Trump news, we first have to point out one glaring double-standard in the media.

"When are members of the media going to call the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter what he truly is? After his outbursts in his first court appearance, there is simply no further doubt that he is nothing more than a Christian terrorist. He used murderous violence because his religious sensibilities were offended. That is religious terrorism, which needs to be pointed out in no uncertain terms. In fact, I would go farther, and ask why the media is not feverishly investigating where he was radicalized and what organizations radicalized him to commit his act of terror. To call this anything less is an insult to the victims."

 

2
   White supremacists for Trump!

OK, on with the Donald-bashing.

"I see that white supremacist groups are enjoying a bonanza of attention as a result of Donald Trump's campaign. One of the major online white supremacist sites even had to upgrade their servers because the traffic was spiking so high every time Trump came out with another xenophobic policy proposal. At this point, it looks like Trump has locked in the white supremacist vote, folks!"

 

3
   Please turn out the lights

An oldie but a goodie... guaranteed to strike fear into the hearts of any sane Republicans!

"I hear that not only is the Republican Party worried that Donald Trump might just bolt and launch a third-party bid, but that Ben Carson is now saying he might just leave as well. Two third-party runs from the right would be extraordinary. One wonders whether this idea will catch on among all the Republicans running for their party's nomination. If everyone bolts and forms their own party, perhaps they'll need a sign at the exit door: 'Will the last Republican to leave please turn out the lights.' I'd bet the last one in the room would be Lindsey Graham, what do you think?"

 

4
   Condemning Trump condemnation

An excellent example of why Republicans are quaking in their boots over having to react to Donald Trump these days.

"The state Republican Party chair in New Hampshire shows why more Republicans aren't standing up to Donald Trump when he goes too far. She put out a forceful statement condemning Trump this week, stating: 'There are some issues that transcend politics. While my position (as party chairwoman) is certainly political, I am an American first. There should never be a day in the United States of America when people are excluded based solely on their race or religion. It is un-Republican. It is unconstitutional. And it is un-American.' Immediately after she took this strong stand, other Republicans called for her resignation. One in particular spoke approvingly of 'the situation in World War II, when we put the Japanese in camps,' and went on to say his party's state leader 'should resign as chairman of the Republican Party and run for chairman of the Democratic Party.' This backlash is precisely why so many Republican officeholders are so terrified of going on the record saying anything bad about Trump."

 

5
   Can't buy me love

Bush's campaign woes are mounting fast.

"You know, there's a saying in the advertising world about how if the dogs won't eat the dogfood it doesn't matter how well you advertise it -- the product will fail. This seems to be the perfect metaphor for the Jeb Bush campaign, doesn't it? His super PAC has now spent a whopping 50 million dollars on ads, and in the latest national poll Bush was only pulling a laughable three percent. His polling average isn't much better these days, at 3.6 percent. And with all that money spent, if you type in JebBush.com to your browser, you will be automatically redirected to Donald Trump's campaign site -- because the Bush team forgot to spend 10 bucks registering the name. If I was a Bush donor, I'd be pretty upset about the return on investment Bush has so far managed."

 

6
   Bush's lawyers can still deliver the snark

Somewhere in Bush's campaign there is a bright spark, it seems.

"Jeb Bush and Donald Trump are having a battle of lawyers' letters, it seems. Trump's lawyer sent a threatening note warning about slandering The Donald, and Bush's lawyers shot back by filing a complaint that the Trump lawyer was illegally working for the Trump campaign. Some of this letter was pretty amusing, such as: 'Just as your client is attempting to quickly learn the basics of foreign policy, we wish you personally the best in your attempts to learn election law.' The funniest line was probably: 'Should your client actually be elected Commander-in-Chief, will you be the one writing the cease and desist letters to Vladimir Putin, or will that be handled by outside counsel?' Obviously there's somebody working for Bush with a snarky sense of humor -- one wonders why the author of this letter wouldn't be more effective at helping the super PAC guys write some better ads, in fact."

 

7
   He-who-must-not-be-named

And, finally, the best putdown of the week.

"Donald Trump isn't too popular in Great Britain these days, it seems. Not only is there a petition (with hundreds of thousands of signatures on it) for Parliament to ban him from the country as a hatemonger, he is also being widely compared to Voldemort. Which brought the following response from J. K. Rowling: 'How horrible. Voldemort was nowhere near as bad.' It didn't stop the jokes about Trump's hair being one of his horcruxes, though."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

174 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [372] -- Not Funny Anymore”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Arianna and Hillary are correct -- what started out as a hilarious joke is no longer even the slightest bit funny anymore.

    That's a surprise.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump, in pretty much every recent poll, has over twice the support of his nearest competitor. Twice! This is slowly sinking in to the Republican establishment, but they still can't seem to come to grips with the most probable conclusion.

    Not a surprise.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    You make good points, but I'm going to attempt to talk you back from ledge, at least a bit.

    "Donald Trump has the best chance of becoming the Republican nominee for the highest office in the land."

    Let's assume that's true, based on the recent polls. Having the best chance of becoming the Republican nominee doesn't imply it's a done deal, or that the best chance is even particularly high - compared to "somebody else." The Republican field is still crowded, Trump is averaging around 30% in national polls and a bit less in Iowa and New Hampshire. Trump numbers are volatile, he's been there before, but couldn't hang on. In any case, that still leaves 70% who aren't favoring Trump, with Rubio, Cruz and Carson garnering about 15% each. They are followed by the walking dead, Bush, Christie, Paul, Kasich, Fiorina and Huckabee, each in single digits, but still accounting for about 15% of the pie. A lot of these folks are going to be dropping out in the near future, and it's not at all obvious to me that Trump is going to claim enough of them to get a clean win(see earlier Venn Diagram).

    Trump's latest uptick is about equal to Carson's dramatic slump, but both are running as "non politicians," so this zero sum shift makes a lot of sense. Bush, Christie, Fiorina and Kasich are Establishment and/or Moderate, closer to Cruz or Rubio than Trump. Clear the field of the Walking Dead, and a tight 3 way race seems likely. If either Cruz or Rubio drops out, the surviving Establishment candidate seems primed to pick up more voters than Trump. The GOP Establishment could put a big thumb on either Cruz or Rubio to bow out for the good of The Party.

    The prediction markets seem to be thinking along these lines...Rubio has dropped a bit recently, but he's still in the top spot, with a 40% chance of securing the nomination, Cruz and Trump are in a near tie for second at around 20% and even Bush rates a 10% chance, Christie closer to 5%. The polls have tended to track markets, with a lag of a week or two. Cruz has been climbing for a long time in the markets, as Rubio has dropped, so Cillizza may not be so far off in evaluating Cruz's seating arrangements.

    I'm not saying Trump isn't doing (surprisingly)well, but he doesn't exactly look dominant yet. It still looks like a 3 way race to me. The Republican Estab. still has a lot of cards to play, up to and including a brokered convention or even a fractured party.

    One other thing. We haven't seen a 21st Century equivalent of "The Daisy Commercial Yet." Trump still has plenty of room to Goldcrater....even before the main event next Nov.

    If I have to pin one label on the GOP nomination race, it would be FLUID.

  4. [4] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    The Republican Party is going to a strange place. At times I feel they regard success as how much they annoy Democrats, but recent events signal a major internal schism in the party - the Democrats seem to be irrelevant.

    The more sensible thinkers on the right are getting impatient with the populists and their clown-like figurehead, The Donald.

    I think the chance that a genuine schism will happen is increasing, which, if it happened, would give Hillary a couple of terms before an electable, unified Republican candidate appeared in the 2024 timescale.

    There may be a lot of history books written about the Republican Party for the years 2008 thru 2024.

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilmcgovern -

    The period from 1816-1824 was a one-party period, known as the "Era Of Good Feelings" by historians.

    My guess is that when historians study the teens of our decade, they'll come up with a slightly different name.

    Heh.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    We here in America are going through a period which might be summed up as "If I doesn't laugh, I'm surely going to cry."

    The rules are out the window this year. Nobody really knows what that means. I don't know if that helps explain the chaos, but it's all I've got, at this point. It's going to be a wild ride, that's the only thing that is for sure....

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    None of this is much fun for Republicans, one assumes, but they've truly brought this on themselves.

    Au contraire...

    Trump is a phenomenon completely and utterly created by the incompetence of President Obama and the Democrat Party..

    You can't blame this on the GOP..

    If Obama and the Democrat Party had governed at least SOMEWHAT sensibly and competently, Trump would never have entered the race and would NEVER have made it past the 1 month mark..

    Whether ya'all want to admit it or not, the Trump Phenomenon is a complete Democrat Party construct...

    It's not funny anymore -- it's getting closer and closer to becoming reality. Donald Trump, leader of the Republican Party.

    And, who... alone amongst us all.. said that this was a very real possibility from Day One?? :D

    Yep... That would be me... :D

    "I just want someone who will lie to me and pretend to be interested in what I say just so he can get into my pants.."
    "Uh.... That would be me.."

    -BEDAZZLED

    :D

    President Barack Obama, in the primetime Oval Office speech he gave last weekend,

    He did??

    Oh yea.. Obama's STAY THE COURSE speech... I remember that..

    It fell flat...

    the damning video of a cop shooting an African-American who was in no way threatening the cop.

    You DO realize that threatening a cop is not the SOLE justification for use of deadly force, right??

    The subject was armed with a knife, was high on PCP and did not obey the lawful orders of police...

    Justification for deadly force was well-established..

    Michale
    343

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    ACLU Board Member Resigns After Urging People To Kill Supporters Of Trump
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/12/11/aclu-board-member-resigns-after-urging-people-to-kill-supporters-of-trump/

    Do you see the kind of people that Left Wingery hatred is creating??

    I thought liberals were all about respect and tolerance???

    Silly me..

    Michale
    344

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before Election Day.’ They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force…”
    -Loring Wirbel, Proud Member Of The Democrat Party

    And it's the REPUBLICAN PARTY that is the Party of hate???

    Apparently, not...

    Michale
    345

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's something for ya'all to chew on..

    Ya'all have emphatically stated for the record that Trump cannot win the General Election..

    Yet, ya'all stated the exact same thing with regards to the Primary..

    So, isn't it more than slightly possible that ya'all will be as wrong regarding the General as ya'all were regarding the Primary??

    Think about it...

    Michale
    346

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Earlier in the week, the Huffington Post announced that it was un-banishing Trump from the "Entertainment" section and would now properly cover him under "Politics."

    Which simply proves what I said was true when this was first announced..

    The Hysterical Left Wingery doesn't get to be the arbiters of what is and isn't viable for the Republican Party...

    :D

    Michale
    347

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, isn't it more than slightly possible that ya'all will be as wrong regarding the General as ya'all were regarding the Primary??

    Think about it...

    In other words, maybe ya'all better start practicing saying, "President Trump".. :D

    Michale
    348

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I seem to remember many moons ago that Trump is not "inevitable" until he breaks the 30% ceiling in polling..

    Since Trumps brilliant "BAN THE MUSLIMS" ploy that made Democrats and Republicans look like fools, his numbers are consistently in the 35% neighborhood...

    I guess we know what 'inevitable' looks like, eh?? :D

    Aside to TS... I would be very interested in hearing what your Betting Sites are saying about Trump being the GOP Candidate for POTUS??

    Michale
    349

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    I would like to hit 500 comments by Sunday, 1800hrs...

    I can't do it alone people.. I need your help...

    "Q, you wanted to frighten us. We're frightened. You wanted to show us that we were inadequate. For the moment... I grant that. You wanted me to say, 'I need you'? I *need* you!"
    -Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, Q Who

    :D

    Michale
    350

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- Little help? Stuck in spam filter.

    Era of Ill Feeling is too obvious, The Regressive Era has a nice ring.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Regressive Era has a nice ring.

    "I suppose it's all relative. To Rod, his reality is every bit as valid as ours. To him, WE'RE the imposters."
    -Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE: ATLANTIS, McKay & Mrs Miller

    :D

    Michale
    351

  17. [17] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Just to poke....

    Go Navy... beat army.....

  18. [18] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    CW:

    I did not know about "The Era of Good Feelings". As you say, it is unlikely that 2008-2024 will be called something similar.

    Michale:

    64% of Republican voters are not supporting Trump
    92% of the total voting public are not supporting Trump

    And remember the goal is to win *committed* delegates, not polls or even primaries.

    There is a long way to go. At this time in the last election cycle Newt Gingrich was higher in the polls than Donald is today and telling us about his plans for a moon base. The eventual winner in Iowa, Santorum, was in sixth place with about 5% in the polls.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    64% of Republican voters are not supporting Trump
    92% of the total voting public are not supporting Trump

    Yes, I am sure you can find a poll that says that...

    What did the polls say about Obama this far out from the election?? :D

    What did the polls say about Reagan this far out from the election...

    Ya'all never even DREAMED that Trump would make it even THIS far..

    Ya'all's TRUMP predictions are as good as my SCOTUS predictions.. :D

    There is a long way to go.

    Exactly...

    Michale
    352

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to poke....

    Go Navy... beat army.....

    Yea, dream on!! :D

    Michale
    353

  21. [21] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    Michale:

    The prediction market where you people use real money:

    https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Category/6/US-Elections

    Note please:

    Top Predictions for Republican Nominee:
    Rubio 38¢
    Cruz 30¢

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:
  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    The prediction market where you people use real money:

    https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Category/6/US-Elections

    Note please:

    Top Predictions for Republican Nominee:
    Rubio 38¢
    Cruz 30¢

    It'll be interesting to see which is right..

    The betting markets or the polls.. :D

    Michale
    355

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    86
    shares
    A
    In just over a year, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has graduated from taking and holding territory inside its nascent “caliphate” to exporting terrorism around the globe. From Sydney to Ottawa, from Copenhagen to San Bernardino, this terrorist organization is directing or inspiring jihadists to conduct heinous acts of mass-casualty terrorism. Since October of last year, three such attacks have taken place in the United States; one of those being the worst act of radical Islamic terror in America since September 11, 2001. Subsequently, Americans now rate terrorism as their number one concern. They feel unsafe and insecure. They are justifiably afraid of the threat that might be just around the next corner. Americans are lunging for the shotgun and barricading the door. And what do they get from their leaders? Reassurance? Understanding? Resolve to defeat terrorism abroad before it comes home? No, they get a lecture on their latent hostility toward the Islamic faith and practicing Muslims. Stranger still, now that it has become inescapably clear that the fear of terrorism is broad-based, the left’s mission to convince itself that these concerns are isolated to the fever swamps has become even more urgent.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/terrorism/isis-terror-democrats-mock-fears/

    Like I said.. The GOP is talking terrorism and safety and saving American lives..

    Democrats are talking gun control and global warming and minting fresh new Democrat voters...

    Michale
    356

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street’s meltdown. Hillary Clinton’s redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street’s most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
    http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-is-whitewashing-the-financial-catastrophe/

    And THAT's who ya'all want as POTUS....

    The '-D' is powerful indeed...

    Michale
    357

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Landmark deal: Nearly 200 nations give early OK to 1st global climate pact
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/12/cop21-negotiators-analyze-final-draft-climate-pact/

    OK... Great.. We have a global deal.. Frakin' awesome..

    Can the Global Warming fanatics FINALLY shut the frak up!!???

    Children and fanatics.. They should be seen and not heard...

    Michale
    358

  27. [27] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    16,000 people killed per year by firearms (not inclucing suicides which takes us to over 30,000), and we are stressing about 14 murders because the motive was terrorism. Even though other insane people have killed many more in the last few years shooting up schools, malls, churches, etc.

    One thing I learned working on Wall St was that people assess risk really badly. The lizard part of our brain has been tuned for life 50,000 years ago - it does not help us make good decisions in the 21st Century.

    For example, we listen to the lizard part and end up wanting to vote for Trump ;)

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    16,000 people killed per year by firearms (not inclucing suicides which takes us to over 30,000), and we are stressing about 14 murders because the motive was terrorism.

    Uhhh.... yea....

    Even though other insane people have killed many more in the last few years shooting up schools, malls, churches, etc.

    And none of the laws suggested by the Left would have prevented those..

    Surely not banning a Historical Battle Flag...

    Ya'all can have your gun control..

    The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed

    You just have to get around that...

    Michale
    359

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Is the goal of gun control to save lives???

    Michale
    360

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reason I ask is that there are a lot of other things that cause even MORE loss of life...

    If the goal is to save lives, why pick on a Constitutional Right???

    Hell, to hear the Left Wingery tell it, voting for Bush caused HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of deaths...

    So, let's work together and limit the constitutional right to vote...

    You with me??!!?? :D

    Michale
    361

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me make it easy for ya....

    There is no law that the Left can suggest that A> has a snowballs chance in hell of passing and 2> will actually prevent or help prevent mass shootings or terrorist attacks...

    Any law in keeping with the 2nd Amendment that COULD be passed.... HAS been passed...

    The ONLY laws that the Left can propose are "WOULDN'T IT BE NICE" laws....

    But, as I mentioned before, if you want to discuss measures to reduce daily run-o-the-mill gun violence, I am down with that..

    Bring back STOP AND FRISK and BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING. That went a LONG WAY to accomplish just that...

    Michale
    362

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    16,000 people killed per year by firearms

    How many of those 16,000 are justified kills..

    How many of those 16,000 kills are in self-defense..

    Until you can pare it down, the number is meaningless...

    For example, Michael Brown was one of those 16,000...

    So???

    Trayvon Martin was one of those 16,000....

    Big whup...

    If you pare that 16,000 number down to deaths that were actually a tragedy, I would wager that the number is WAY considerably lower...

    And, as such, does not constitute any big emergency...

    Michale
    363

  33. [33] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M-19

    You were saying?

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    overall i tend to think it's a tragedy when anyone non-mansonesque dies an untimely death. certainly there are quite a few people who could do with a lesson in treating others more justly, but nobody learns anything when they're dead.

    JL

  35. [35] 
    dsws wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi managed to force a vote on restricting those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns, for political purposes

    That doesn't sound like good policy: a "watch list" sounds like people about whom there's probable cause to seek further information. That should be doable at a lower threshold than is needed to prohibit the otherwise-lawful activities of such people.

    However, here's what the bill summary actually says:

    Amends the federal criminal code to grant the Attorney General the authority to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of a federal firearms and explosives license to any individual if the Attorney General: (1) determines that such individual has been engaged in or has provided material support or resources for terrorist activities, and (2) has a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearm or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action challenging the denial.

    Prohibits the sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to any individual whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities.

    Permits the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation suits if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security.

    Authorizes the Attorney General to revoke firearms and explosives licenses and permits held by individuals determined to be engaged in terrorism.

  36. [36] 
    dsws wrote:

    Hmm. Apparently the phrase "Era of Good Feelings" has an S on the end. I had thought it was "Era of Good Feeling", which a few sources do say. I wonder whether it changed, or whether I just heard the minority version to begin with.

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Let me get this straight.
    Up until the Trumpon decided he wants to ban Muslims, Hillary thought he was funny?

    Ha, ha... build a wall?
    Ha, ha... Mexican rapists?
    Ha, ha... that protestor deserved to be assaulted?
    Ha, ha... racist lies?
    And on and on and on.
    ???????

    Maybe somebody should ask Hillary what was so funny?

    Moving on... I checked out that link to the WaPo brokered convention story... what is up with their website? What a stupid design.
    The article wasn't very useful either... despite claiming to having spoken to 5 of the 30 attendees at the meeting, the journalists didn't have much to report.

    CW, maybe you should do a helpful column on what it would take for the Trumpon or Carrion to get on the ballot in all 50 states if they choose a third party run?

    As for the AUMF for IS in Iraq and Syria, you neglected to mention the possibility of Congress voting it down. Imagine if our elected congresscritters had done so on the Iraq war... IS wouldn't exist... among a million lives, millions of fewer refugees and 3 trillion other benefits.

    Along the same lines, getting Congress on the record about whether or not they support the US supplying the Army of Conquest in our regime change effort in Syria would be something that would benefit Americans.
    Given that al Nusra (aka al Qaida) is a leading member of the Army of Conquest, our airdrops of ammunition and weapons really ought to be openly debated... maybe with some hearings where relatives of victims of 9/11 get to tell us how they feel about it?
    Heck, maybe they could even set up a commission to discover which members of Congress were briefed but remained silent on Obama aiding our enemy and why?

    Back to Trump banning Muslims, we haven't heard any condemnation from AIPAC yet.
    You'd think they would be defending the rights of the Muslim citizens of our great "ally" Israel to visit... I wonder why they are remaining silent?
    Or, is that cheering I hear behind those closed doors?

    I must say it is pathetically funny that Micha is blaming Obama for the existence of his favorite bigoted, racist Repub candidate. Reminds me of the anti-government types with Hands Off My Medicare signs... just oblivious.
    Or maybe he's blaming him for a good thing?
    Maybe somebody could clear this up for me?
    CW? Anyone?

    A

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Navy won!??

    Who woulda thunked it!?? :D

    Michale
    364

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    overall i tend to think it's a tragedy when anyone non-mansonesque dies an untimely death. certainly there are quite a few people who could do with a lesson in treating others more justly, but nobody learns anything when they're dead.

    I disagree.. Shocker, eh?? :D

    Some people don't deserve to live..

    And those who attempt to kill innocent people are pretty much at the top of that list...

    Michale
    365

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    But my point is that, if saving lives is the goal, there are a lot more things that take a lot more lives that would be better addressed...

    I just don't understand why the Democrat Party thinks that taking people's guns is a worthy battle..

    But, as I said, the solution seems simple..

    Tie gun rules and regulations to voting rules and regulations..

    Democrats will shut up about restricting guns and Republicans will shut up about dis-enfranchising voters..

    It's a two fer!! :D

    Michale
    366

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Trump is a racist, eh??

    Of course, that can be PROVEN..... Right?? :D

    By all means... Have at it...

    Michale
    367

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, as I said, the solution seems simple..

    Tie gun rules and regulations to voting rules and regulations..

    Democrats will shut up about restricting guns and Republicans will shut up about dis-enfranchising voters..

    The point being, of course, is that it is just as constitutionally ridiculous to restrict a person's constitutional right to vote as it is constitutionally ridiculous to restrict a person's constitutional right to keep and bear arms...

    Michale
    368

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Some people don't deserve to live..

    And those who attempt to kill innocent people are pretty much at the top of that list...

    michale,

    i may have misstated my opinion. i do agree with the death penalty in cases of premeditated murder where the person is proud and unrepentant about it - manson was just one example.

    "Deserve's got nothing to do with it"
    ~Unforgiven

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    i do agree with the death penalty in cases of premeditated murder where the person is proud and unrepentant about it - manson was just one example.

    Is that a valid reason to support the death penalty?

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Is that a valid reason to support the death penalty?

    @liz,

    i don't think i ever mentioned my reason. i'm not a believer in "eye for an eye," i just think there are some people on the planet who are so far outside the bounds of society that their continued existence will serve nothing but to bring more misery - still, i do believe that the risk of it being mis-applied needs to be carefully weighed - the innocence project has already identified too many people on death row who were wrongly convicted, which is why i believe there needs to be a very high threshold for the dp to be applied.

    JL

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And the biggest Trump story of the week ... bald eagle attacks Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=M41aZX5ijVM

    Perhaps America has turned on Trump?

    -David

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    i may have misstated my opinion. i do agree with the death penalty in cases of premeditated murder where the person is proud and unrepentant about it - manson was just one example.

    "Deserve's got nothing to do with it"
    ~Unforgiven

    Kudo's on the movie quote.. :D I have to admit I haven't seen UNFORGIVEN... Not a big fan of the genre...

    which is why i believe there needs to be a very high threshold for the dp to be applied.

    As long as that reason for the threshold is to insure that INNOCENT people are snared, I don't have a problem with that..

    Michale
    369

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't think i ever mentioned my reason.

    That's what prompted my question.

    I have another one. :)

    So, do you think that some people on the planet deserve the death penalty and, therefore they justify the existence of the death penalty?

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You want to snare innocent people now, Michale?

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    You want to snare innocent people now, Michale?

    DOH!!!

    *MAJOR* Freudian slip, eh?? :D

    Let me rephrase that to say:

    As long as that reason for the threshold is to insure that INNOCENT people are NOT snared, I don't have a problem with that..

    :D

    Thank you for pointing that out.. :D

    Michale
    370

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're welcome.

    How do you prevent innocent people from being snared?

  52. [52] 
    altohone wrote:

    Birds of a feather...

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ?

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do you prevent innocent people from being snared?

    Exhaustive and redundant investigation...

    The problem arises when the goal is not to protect the innocent but rather to protect the guilty..

    I have no problem with making 1000% sure that innocent people are not executed..

    My problem is with people who acknowledge the guilt but STILL claim that a death penalty is not appropriate...

    The world is a better place with the Osama Bin Ladens, the Ted Bundys, the Michael Browns and the Trayvon Martins removed...

    Michale
    371

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Exhaustive and redundant investigation...

    ... by whom and do you trust them to provide that "exhaustive and redundant investigation?

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you see where I'm going with this, Michale?

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    ... by whom and do you trust them to provide that "exhaustive and redundant investigation?

    Law Enforcement agencies..

    Do you see where I'm going with this, Michale?

    Not sure..

    Are you suggesting creating a special investigatory agency solely for Death Penalty cases??

    Michale
    372

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you trust law enforcement agencies?

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, is it your view, Michale, that a valid argument for continuing the death penalty is that law enforcement agencies and, indeed, the entire judicial system in the United States is trustworthy and capable of providing all of the checks and balances required to prevent the death penalty from being imposed on innocent people?

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or, is it your view that these American agencies are fully capable of providing the kind of exhaustive and redundant investigation that will ensure that the number of innocent people who will be to death by the State is negligible?

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you see where I'm going with this, Michale?

    Not sure..

    It will soon become clear. :)

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, by and large, I trust LEO agencies..

    While not perfect, they are the best thing going..

    I mean, do you want to create an oversight agency?? Do you trust them?? Or do you want to create an oversight agency to oversee the oversight agency??

    And do you trust THEM??

    Where does it end??

    The number of innocent people put to death is not sufficient to simply and arbitrarily throw out the process...

    As I mentioned at the beginning of this issue, some people DESERVE to die for their crimes..

    JL's quote notwithstanding

    Michale
    373

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I mentioned at the beginning of this issue, some people DESERVE to die for their crimes..

    Would you agree with that statement?

    Michale
    374

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The number of innocent people put to death is not sufficient to simply and arbitrarily throw out the process...

    That's interesting but, I did suspect that this would be your view, as implied in my question in [59].

    So, now, let's switch to US immigration agencies. Do you trust them? I mean, they are run by Americans just like the Americans who make up the law enforcement and justice agencies, right?

    Or, are these a different sort of Americans, less trustworthy in their ability to carry out "exhaustive and redundant" investigations?

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you agree with that statement?

    I am against the death penalty, Michale, for a number of reasons.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, now, let's switch to US immigration agencies. Do you trust them? I mean, they are run by Americans just like the Americans who make up the law enforcement and justice agencies, right?

    Yes, I trust them..

    But they are not infallible... The female terrorist who got in on a fiancee visa made no effort to hide her islamic terrorism intentions and was able to come to the US..

    But the REAL issue is that it's impossible for ANY agency, no matter how competent and trustworthy to find out sufficient information to certify the refugees are safe to have entry..

    FBI Director Comey has stated as much..

    So, it's not a question of trust... It's a matter of simply not being able to find the information necessary..

    Michale
    375

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have to admit I haven't seen UNFORGIVEN... Not a big fan of the genre...

    forget the genre, it's one of the best movies ever, of any genre, and extremely germane to the current line of discussion.

    to clarify, my reason for supporting the death penalty isn't that a person "deserves" to die, but that a select few people are so far beyond any hope of ever behaving anywhere close to the socially acceptable norms, that the only thing society can do is end their existence.

    i think it's really awful of you to throw trayvon martin into the category of people who "deserve" to die. we can debate whether the kid was at fault for starting the altercation with his killer; facts really aren't clear on that. but to lump a scared teenager with bin laden and bundy isn't even worthy of an eye-roll.

    JL

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think it's really awful of you to throw trayvon martin into the category of people who "deserve" to die. we can debate whether the kid was at fault for starting the altercation with his killer; facts really aren't clear on that. but to lump a scared teenager with bin laden and bundy isn't even worthy of an eye-roll.

    I wasn't throwing Martin into the DESERVE TO DIE crowd...

    Martin (and Brown and Bin Laden and Bundy etc etc) are part of The World Is A Better Place Without Them crowd...

    I have seen the kind of misery that the Martins and the Browns bring to society...

    So, I don't shed any tears at their departure...

    But I understand those who do...

    Michale
    376

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But the REAL issue is that it's impossible for ANY agency, no matter how competent and trustworthy to find out sufficient information to certify the refugees are safe to have entry..

    I see.

    So, what you're saying is that it is perfectly acceptable for the State to put to death an acceptable - in your estimation - number of innocent people to death as a result of the infallibility of the US agencies involved in that policy but completely unacceptable to allow any Muslim refugees into the United States for the foreseeable future or, indeed in your view, at any time in the future.

    Now, we need to discuss the fallout of both policies - keeping the death penalty knowing that some innocent people will be put to death by the State and instituting a no Muslim refugee/immigrant policy in the US.

    First off, do you believe there are ANY negative impacts of either policy and, if so, then how do you compare the relative negative consequences for each in the sense of how they impact on the security and safety of Americans.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, what you're saying is that it is perfectly acceptable for the State to put to death an acceptable - in your estimation - number of innocent people to death as a result of the infallibility of the US agencies involved in that policy

    No, it's not "acceptable"...

    But the fact that it may, emphasis on *MAY*, occur is not sufficient reason to NOT remove from society those who would cause further misery...

    but completely unacceptable to allow any Muslim refugees into the United States for the foreseeable future or, indeed in your view, at any time in the future.

    No, my view is a temporary halt to Syrian immigrants until such time as the immigrants can be certified to not have terrorist ties..

    First off, do you believe there are ANY negative impacts of either policy and, if so, then how do you compare the relative negative consequences for each in the sense of how they impact on the security and safety of Americans.

    Of course there are negative impacts to both...

    But the negative impact of letting terrorists loose in this country far FAR outweighs the POSSIBLE negative impact of an innocent person being executed...

    Michale
    377

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No, my view is a temporary halt to Syrian immigrants until such time as the immigrants can be certified to not have terrorist ties...

    earlier you didn't say Syrian immigrants, you said Muslim immigrants.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    earlier you didn't say Syrian immigrants, you said Muslim immigrants.

    From the general to the specific..

    I got the feeling that Liz was heading in that direction..

    The Syrian refugees are especially difficult to certify because of the tenuous nature of the Syrian regime..

    I mean, who are we going to check with to verify the bona fides of any given refugee??

    But there again, it raises a different question..

    Are we talking about immigrants or refugees???

    Michale
    378

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    immigrants or refugees?

    if we're talking about refugees who want to go back soon, can't we put them somewhere isolated enough that they're not in danger from their own countrymen but there's also no danger of some terrorist slipping through the cracks and into the US?

    if we're talking about immigrants, it needs to be handled on a case by case basis. either way, i wouldn't want someone denying me entry solely based on my religion.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, my view is a temporary halt to Syrian immigrants until such time as the immigrants can be certified to not have terrorist ties..

    What about refugees from the war torn parts of the Middle East - do they have to wait forever, too? If not forever, then when will the US finally catch up with the rest of the world Re. "exhaustive and redundant" refugee background checks? Ahem. You realize, I hope, that you have the best vetting process in the world. And, yes, it is not perfect. News flash for Michale - it never will be.

    I hope you also realize that Syrian refugees have already entered my country and will continue to do so at a pretty good clip. Are you equally worried about terrorists among them crossing your northern border?

    And, finally, you should know that you already have terrorists roaming about in each and every state in your union and many of them were born in America. This is the real problem you need to focus on and your prescription for Muslim immigrants/refugees/visitors (I'm assuming you're on board with the Trump plan) only makes that particular situation far worse than it may be otherwise.

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    if we're talking about refugees who want to go back soon, can't we put them somewhere isolated enough that they're not in danger from their own countrymen but there's also no danger of some terrorist slipping through the cracks and into the US?

    Why, yes, there is such a place! It's called Canada and other humane countries around the world.

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wait a sec, Josh ... "refugees who want to go back soon"?

    Ha! Define soon.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    if we're talking about refugees who want to go back soon, can't we put them somewhere isolated enough that they're not in danger from their own countrymen but there's also no danger of some terrorist slipping through the cracks and into the US?

    That's already been done...

    That's kinda been my point that no one has addressed.. Syrian refugees are in safe areas in Hungary and Turkey... There is no immediacy to their need to be resettled...

    Except, of course, for the fact that Democrats need to mint fresh new Democrat Voters..

    if we're talking about immigrants, it needs to be handled on a case by case basis. either way, i wouldn't want someone denying me entry solely based on my religion.

    Except such religion based criteria is CODIFIED in US law...

    But, since we have an Administration who treats the law as something to get around...... Well.....

    Michale
    379

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    What about refugees from the war torn parts of the Middle East - do they have to wait forever, too?

    No, not forever..

    Just long enough to make sure they are not a threat..

    What's so wrong with that???

    NO ONE has been able to answer that one simple question...

    I hope you also realize that Syrian refugees have already entered my country and will continue to do so at a pretty good clip. Are you equally worried about terrorists among them crossing your northern border?

    Even more so than the Southern Border...

    And, finally, you should know that you already have terrorists roaming about in each and every state in your union and many of them were born in America. This is the real problem you need to focus on and your prescription for Muslim immigrants/refugees/visitors (I'm assuming you're on board with the Trump plan) only makes that particular situation far worse than it may be otherwise.

    What you call the "Trump Plan" was also the "Jimmy Carter Plan" and the "FDR Plan...

    EVERY President during wartime and times of national emergency has limited immigration based on possible enemy infiltration..

    But, of course, since it's a person that has a '-R' after their name, all of the sudden, it's mass hysteria....

    Michale
    380

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wait a sec, Josh ... "refugees who want to go back soon"?

    ..ulp... Now ya gone and done it!! :D

    Michale
    381

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why, yes, there is such a place! It's called Canada and other humane countries around the world.

    Yea.. France was one of those "humane" countries..

    And what did their humanity get them???

    Over 470 innocents brutally killed and wounded...

    I'll ask again for the upteenth time...

    WHAT is so wrong about insuring the safety and well-being on one's own citizens??

    It's JOB ONE of every civilized government on the face of the planet!

    I know it's true because it's exactly what YA'ALL would be saying if we had a GOP Administration...

    Michale
    382

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ha! Define soon.

    as soon as they can live there without their lives being in danger on a daily basis?

    .ulp... Now ya gone and done it!! :D

    Now you've done it.
    Now you've done it!
    THAT's for making me come to Mars!
    You know how much I hate this F*ing planet!
    ~total recall

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i still can't believe you've never seen unforgiven.

    That is you there, ain't it Bob? the Duck of Death?

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    as soon as they can live there without their lives being in danger on a daily basis?

    Ah, you mean just this side of never ... :)

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hispanic activists vow to flood voter rolls with 1 million immigrants, punish Trump, GOP at polls
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/13/donald-trumps-harsh-rhetoric-sparks-hispanic-activ/

    Minting fresh new Democrat Voters...

    The backlash is going to be horrendous...

    Michale
    383

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    i still can't believe you've never seen unforgiven.

    I know.. And me being such a Clint Eastwood fan!!

    I'll see about rectifying this egregious oversite..

    :D

    Michale
    384

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like a terrorist attack in the making..

    Cops in Missouri are reporting that several middle eastern men (ACK!!! PROFILING!!!! :D) have purchased over 200 cheap cell phones have been purchased in area Wal Marts over a span of two days..

    In the same area almost 50 propane tanks have been stolen..

    Michale
    385

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exclusive: Conservative Group Calls for Federal Inquiry Into Hillary Clinton Son-in-Law Request
    http://time.com/4147115/hillary-clinton-emails-marc-mezvinsky/

    Yea... No nepotism or quid-pro-quo in Hillary's State Department, eh??

    Isn't this something ya'all savage the Republicans about??

    Michale
    386

  88. [88] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet22 and Liz

    "The world is a better place with the Osama Bin Ladens, the Ted Bundys, the Michael Browns and the Trayvon Martins removed"

    nypoet22-I applaud that you challenged Micha on the inclusion of Trayvon Martin in what can only be called beyond wingnuttery, but "not even worthy of an eye-roll" seems a bit mild. I also must ask why Michael Brown's inclusion was left unchallenged.

    Neither Martin nor Brown come anywhere near close to fitting your definition of those worthy of the death penalty... (or the "after an exhaustive and redundant investigation" definition Micha offered for that matter)

    Both were executed without a trial and before an investigation (both of which were questionable), and neither were, even after the fact, accused of anything close to a capital crime.

    "I have seen the kind of misery that the Martins and the Browns bring to society"

    And, you let that slide?
    Death justified by ugly stereotyping, where the only documented "misery" they "bring to society" in one case amounted to petty theft and the other simply walking down the street?

    Liz- you were participating in that conversation and you say nothing?

    I know Micha is hopeless, but I've come to expect more from both of you.
    Actually, much more.

    A

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently Biga suffers from the same reading comprehension issues that he accuses others of..

    At NO TIME, did I state that Michael Brown's or Trayvon's crimes were justification for the Death Penalty.. In fact, if these two scumbags had lived and been arrested, I would readily agree that the Death Penalty is wholly inappropriate for the crimes they committed..

    What I DID state is that this world and our society is a better place without scumbags like Martin and Brown in it...

    Now, if you want to address THAT point, the REAL point I was making, rather than invent ludicrous strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the point I was making, by all means..

    Have at it... :D

    Michale
    388

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, if you want to address THAT point, the REAL point I was making, rather than invent ludicrous strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the point I was making, by all means..

    Have at it... :D

    But, of course, you CAN'T address the real point I was making... :D

    Michale
    389

  91. [91] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Your stereotyping is disgusting.
    When you say "the world is a better place with them gone" you are condoning unjustified, as you put, executions. There is no strawman when you, not me, lump these young men into a discussion about the death penalty... and the result was the same despite the circumvention of a legal process.
    Only in a very troubled mind would anybody recognize a valid "point" in that crap.

    Your unsubstantiated assessment that they were "scumbags" who are unworthy of life to try to again justify your filth is just pathetic.

    "Had they been arrested for the crimes they committed"?
    The police admitted they didn't even know about the petty theft until after Brown was dead, and Martin committed no crime whatsoever... so there was no cause for either to have been arrested. Your admission that the death penalty would have been inappropriate only suggests you actually know how wrong your "point" was from the beginning, and you're too much of a wimp to admit it.
    You literally make me sick.

    But, my comment wasn't to you.
    And when anybody here engages you, they should challenge all the vile nonsense you spew.

    Silence is assent as you recently mentioned.

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "not even worthy of an eye-roll" seems a bit mild. I also must ask why Michael Brown's inclusion was left unchallenged.

    @alto,

    i try to keep a moderate and factual tone, no matter how vigorously i disagree. sometimes that means i understate my case, or focus only on the strongest part of my argument. if that somehow comes off as condoning the michael brown incident, or agreeing with the statement that martin and brown "brought misery" to their respective communities, that's not the case.

    michale writes all sorts of stuff off the cuff, much of which i disagree with intensely. but this is, after all, the comments section of a blog, and the culture here at CW dot-com is to respond with a modicum of respect for the commenter, no matter how ridiculous one thinks their arguments may be. responding to every single comment would require a lot more free time than i have available. same for liz, i'm sure.

    At NO TIME, did I state that Michael Brown's or Trayvon's crimes were justification for the Death Penalty..

    @michale,

    then why did you throw their names into the mix when the death penalty was the topic of discussion? "deserve to die" vs. "world is better off without" is a pretty narrow distinction, unless you changed the subject without letting anyone else know about it. if we're going to discuss people the world is better off without, a petty thief and a teen with no criminal record would be pretty near the bottom of the list. i suspect you mentioned them just to get a rise out of some of our blog's more sensitive souls.

    JL

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have to admit we're no fans of Rahm Emanuel, because we vividly remember his scathing disdain for the progressive media and the progressive base of his own party, while he was serving as President Obama's most-powerful aide. So we're not exactly shedding tears over Rahm's political fate or his political legacy. In fact, our feelings towards the mayor might best be expressed as: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Rahm." And, meanwhile, here's another MDDOTW award, as you get ready to leave.

    "I have complete confidence in Rahm Emanuel."
    -Hillary Clinton

    Hmmmmmmmm...... :D

    Michale
    390

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    if we're going to discuss people the world is better off without, a petty thief and a teen with no criminal record would be pretty near the bottom of the list. i

    A petty thief and a teen with a large criminal record, BOTH who attacked innocent people and tried to murder them..

    It was their OWN actions that got them killed..

    No one forced them into those actions..

    It was their choice..

    A point you seem to constantly overlook..

    i suspect you mentioned them just to get a rise out of some of our blog's more sensitive souls.

    Not so much get a rise as generate some discussion...

    For several reasons, not the least of which, it's a topic that I can speak with more than a little authority on...

    I get lost in all the economic theory discussions so it's nice to be on firmer ground once in a while...

    Michale
    391

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand, if Brown and Martin had succeeded in killing their victims, I would have whole-heartedly supported the Death Penalty in both cases..

    Martin for a hate-crime based murder and Brown for the murder of a police officer..

    So, in THAT context, their names WOULD belong in the Justified Death Penalty column...

    Michale
    392

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Michael Brown..

    'Hands up, don't shoot' ranked one of biggest 'Pinocchios' of 2015
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hands-up-dont-shoot-false-216736#ixzz3uKjEZJ00

    I believe I said that.. Over and over and over again...

    Michale
    393

  97. [97] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    You blew it Michale. The "Treyvon deserved it" line might work on the Fox boards, but any reasonable person would look at the situation and ask why Zimmerman engaged when he was specifically told by the dispatcher not to, and there was no incitement beyond wearing a hoodie in Zimmerman's patch and being the wrong color. The subsequent character assassination by the RWNJs was vile, even for them.

    You have to keep your sane brain engaged when you are on CW - you can go bananas on Fox boards all you want.

  98. [98] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet22

    Glad to hear it.
    Understatement was a good word choice.

    I am certainly sensitive to unsubstantiated and false assertions that don't qualify as even ridiculous arguments. Pretending such drivel is worthy of a respectful response is not for me, nor conducive to a sense of community in my opinion... particularly when ignored. I think that enables the destruction of the community from within.

    I get the time constraint argument too, but your continued engagement suggests that wasn't actually in play in this case (nor for Liz).

    Always appreciate the response though.

    A

  99. [99] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilmcg

    Thanks!
    You beat me to it.

    I would add that Brown didn't choose to be confronted for no cause either, and that attempted murder is likewise wholly unsubstantiated in both cases.

    It would seem that Micha wimped out on responding to me after throwing down the gauntlet... maybe he will engage with you?

    A

  100. [100] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    CORRECTION:

    Representative Peter Welch is from Vermont, not Virginia as the article originally said. We're sorry for the error, it has been fixed.

    Mea culpa, and a hat-tip to Carl Groppe (Twitter @HeyCarl3) for pointing it out.

    -CW

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    altohone [88], [91], [98]

    Well, aren't you a jumped-up, presumptuous little shit.

    :-)

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua [92]

    Very nice!

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    You blew it Michale. The "Treyvon deserved it" line might work on the Fox boards, but any reasonable person would look at the situation and ask why Zimmerman engaged when he was specifically told by the dispatcher not to,

    Yes, if you rewrite the facts of the instance to suit a political agenda, then yes. That is exactly what happened..

    But, of course, the reality is much different..

    Let me clue you in..

    First off, a police dispatcher has absolutely NO AUTHORITY to tell on-scene security personnel to do ANYTHING.. Zimmerman was well within his rights to tell the police dispatcher to stuff it..

    However, the facts clearly show that Zimmerman took the advice of the police dispatcher and broke off pursuit. He was heading back to his vehicle when he was attacked by Martin..

    and there was no incitement beyond wearing a hoodie in Zimmerman's patch and being the wrong color.

    Spoken like a person truly ignorant of security and LEO duties.. No offense...

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
    -Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK

    Zimmerman was fully within his rights to attempt to make contact with Martin and ascertain Martin's bona fides.. Even if Zimmerman WASN'T security (Neighborhood Watch) for the complex, he would STILL have been within his rights to approach Martin and ascertain Martin's bona fides..

    Also, the facts clearly show that Martin could have been Pink With Purple Polka Dots for all Zimmerman knew at that point...

    Race had absolutely NOTHING to do with Zimmerman's actions..

    Race had EVERYTHING to do with Martin's actions and the actions of the Left Wingery (and majority of Weigantians) in the aftermath of the incident..

    Sanford FL is practically my backyard.. I was at the crime scene and saw the facts with my own eyes..

    This is a losing debate for you...

    The Left Wingery had their bogus kangaroo trial and the Left Wingery had their asses handed to them..

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale
    394

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Want to talk about HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT" now??

    :D

    Michale
    395

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would add that Brown didn't choose to be confronted for no cause either, and that attempted murder is likewise wholly unsubstantiated in both cases.

    Actually, Brown DID choose to be confronted as much, if not more, than Martin..

    Brown made that choice when he attacked a senior citizen half his size and committed a strong armed robbery..

    But why let any facts intrude on your wallowing ignorance...

    Michale
    396

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    altohone [88], [91], [98]

    Well, aren't you a jumped-up, presumptuous little shit.

    Heh

    Michale
    397

  107. [107] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Micha isn't always wrong.
    Silence is assent.

    Of course, I didn't miss your recent expressions of frustration with the wingnut, nor do I think you're inured or supportive, but letting that ugly crap slide jumped out at me.

    If a new visitor to this site was reading that thread, I think they would have thought wtf? too.

    I also think you know better than to insult me like that...

    ... you know dang well I'm a presumptuous BIG shit.

    A

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    and there was no incitement beyond wearing a hoodie in Zimmerman's patch and being the wrong color.

    Neil, it also might interest you to know that the Department Of Homeland Security has released dozens of training aids (videos and stills) to LEO agencies detailing public safety and such..

    HUNDREDS of these videos and stills contains images of criminals and terrorists wearing hoodies...

    Just thought you might be interested in this little fact..

    Michale
    398

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Micha isn't always wrong.

    Glad we got that on record.. :D

    Michale
    399

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    ... you know dang well I'm a presumptuous BIG shit.

    "I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast!!"

    "You eat pieces of shit for breakfast??"
    -Happy Gilmore

    :D

    Michale
    400

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news...

    In Paris, Climate Change Alarmists Con Everyone, Including Themselves
    http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/14/paris-climate-change-alarmists-con-themselves/

    It was bound to happen.. Global Warming fanatics have finally succeeded in deluding themselves utterly and completely..

    But this begs the question..

    Now that Global Warming fanatics have FINALLY solved the Global Warming "problem"..

    Does that mean they will shut the frak up about it!??

    Michale
    401

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    RE: #103

    For those who think that Trayvon Martin (and Michael Brown) were actually the victims..???

    Apparently they have forgotten the words of Dr Martin Luther King..

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

    For the Left Wingery, Martin and Brown have been judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character...

    Think about it...

    Michale
    402

  113. [113] 
    altohone wrote:

    Sure Micha

    You saw the "facts" with your own eyes...

    ... by travelling back in time to witness the event?

    I appreciate you undermining your own argument by claiming to know what happened by rubbernecking at a crime scene.

    And you dare to accuse others of revisionism?

    Pathetic.

    The wingnuts choosing Zimmerman as their poster child of sound judgment and honesty sure worked out well.
    His version of the events just makes so much sense... to every gullible fool.

    I also love how you think referring to something completely unrelated to the incident in which Brown was executed somehow bolsters your previous fantasy justifications.
    So, now we have two "facts" the officers interestingly didn't know at the time being presented as justification for initiating the confrontation who we are to believe chose it, and the dead victim is the attempted murderer and the murderers are the victims.

    Gotcha.

    The Zimmerman's with badges... all too common unfortunately.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said..

    Hysterical Left Wingers are ignoring Dr Martin Luther King's words..

    Martin & Brown are innocent victims SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of the color of their skin...

    There's a word for that...

    It's called racism....

    Michale
    404

  115. [115] 
    altohone wrote:

    And

    "Race had EVERYTHING to do with Martin's actions"

    How revealing.
    Yup.
    He did it because he's black.

    Your true colors on display for all to see.

    Once again, dog whistles just weren't good enough and Micha goes full on blatant.

  116. [116] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Projection doesn't erase your comments.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the facts don't support yours... :D

    Michale
    405

  118. [118] 
    altohone wrote:

    Would those be the "facts" you saw with your own eyes again after rushing to the crime scene to see if they needed your expertise?

    Did you tell them you are a psychic who could determine the "facts" of events you didn't witness?

    Or maybe, that you can communicate with dead boys to determine their motivation for choosing to be confronted?

    Were they as impressed as we are?

    I'm guessing the wingnut media didn't quite manage the same wall to wall "professional" coverage of Zimmerman's racist coming out party?

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    All LAUSD schools closed by 'credible threat' of violence
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-all-lausd-schools-closed-threat-20151215-story.html

    If we don't send out kids to school, the terrorists win... :D

    Michale
    410

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    From your lack of follow-up I am going to assume you concede that there are no facts to support your version of the incident and that there are no facts to support any claims of racism..

    Case closed. :D

    Michale
    411

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    This strikes me an EXTREME over-reaction on the part of the Los Angeles school board which may have just set a very, very challenging precedent for cities, big and small, across the nation.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    This strikes me an EXTREME over-reaction on the part of the Los Angeles school board which may have just set a very, very challenging precedent for cities, big and small, across the nation.

    We don't KNOW it's an "over-reaction"...

    The fact that it IS a major MAJOR step indicates to me that the threat must be big and imminence must be pretty compelling...

    Michale
    412

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    From your lack of follow-up I am going to assume you concede that there are no facts to support your version of the incident and that there are no facts to support any claims of racism..

    And yes, I know what happens when one makes an assumption.

    It makes an ass out of U and Umption.. :D

    But seriously, there are no facts at all to support your position that Zimmerman instigated the altercation. Martin was safe at home, but then doubled back to attack Zimmerman..

    There are also no facts to support ANY claim of racism on the part of Zimmerman.. Obama's DOJ, who had a LOT of credibility riding on finding an instance of racism dug for months and months and months and came up empty..

    There was no racism on the part of Zimmerman. This is established fact...

    But, getting back to who instigated the altercation, here's the thing...

    It doesn't matter who "stalked" whom.. It doesn't matter who followed who... It doesn't matter who started anything..

    The *ONLY* relevant part of this entire incident is the last 10-15 seconds prior to the gun shot...

    Those are the ONLY seconds that matter.. And the ONLY question that matters is this:

    "Was it reasonable that Zimmerman felt that his life was in danger?"

    The answer, from all the available facts and evidence, is clearly YES...

    So, you can go on and on about who followed who or who instigated what...

    It's ALL irrelevant...

    In the eyes of the law, it's the last 10-15 seconds that matter...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale
    413

  124. [124] 
    altohone wrote:

    Now it doesn't matter who instigated the confrontation?
    Or "who stalked who"?
    It's irrelevant?

    That almost sounds like an admission of doubt... or at least CYA.

    The "facts" as relayed by Zimmerman sure do keep getting more interesting and believable... or are we back to the psychic eyewitness?

  125. [125] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It doesn't matter who "stalked" whom.. It doesn't matter who followed who... It doesn't matter who started anything...

    i may not be a legal expert, but i can't imagine that the question of who instigated a fatal event would be irrelevant to one person's culpability for the other person's death.

    that said, your assertion that trayvon martin had a criminal record is inaccurate. he was arrested twice at school, but was never charged with a crime. you (and perhaps others in law enforcement) may believe he SHOULD have had a criminal record, but the fact is that he didn't.

    that's one fewer arrests and two fewer indictments than zimmerman, who has twice been charged with domestic violence, one of which involved a firearm. what's your counter-argument? sure, he regularly beats on women and pulls out his firearm when he's upset, but hey, at least he's not a "racist?"

    JL

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    i may not be a legal expert, but i can't imagine that the question of who instigated a fatal event would be irrelevant to one person's culpability for the other person's death.

    Say Joe Blow is at a bar... He is loud and obnoxious and insults John Smith's wife...

    John Smith gets up to defend his wife's honor and get's in Joe Blow's face...

    Joe Blow punches John Smith in the face and then John Smith wails into Joe Blow and proceeds to beat the living shit out of Joe Blow...

    Joe Blow realizing he is over matched, attempts to disengage from the fight, yelling for help...

    No one helps Joe Blow as John Smith proceeds to slam Joe Blow's head against the floor..

    Joe Blow, fearing for his life, draws his weapon and fires, killing John Smith instantly...

    By the law, that would be ruled justifiable homicide. A "good shoot"...

    Textbook case of self-defense...

    that said, your assertion that trayvon martin had a criminal record is inaccurate. he was arrested twice at school, but was never charged with a crime. you (and perhaps others in law enforcement) may believe he SHOULD have had a criminal record, but the fact is that he didn't.

    He was a criminal.. He became a criminal the instant he attacked an innocent person...

    The fact that he was never charged is irrelevant..

    that's one fewer arrests and two fewer indictments than zimmerman, who has twice been charged with domestic violence, one of which involved a firearm. what's your counter-argument

    None of which has ANY bearing on the case under discussion.. Or, as you saying that Zimmerman should be charged in the Martin shooting because of crimes he WILL commit in the future???

    sure, he regularly beats on women "

    He wasn't charged because his ex-wife didn't file a report...

    So, by the standards you apply to Martin, Zimmerman is completely innocent..

    No??

    Michale
    417

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrr I hate un-closed attributes...

    Michale
    419

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually rather funny....

    Trayvon Martin was one of those gun-loving fanatics several Weigantians have condemned on a regular basis...

    So why the defense of this thug???

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale
    422

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama Steps Up Talk on ISIS: "You Are Next"
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/15/obama_ups_talk_on_isis_you_are_next_129033.html

    Ooooooo Obama just drew another "red line"...

    YAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN

    Michale
    424

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's ASSAD Red Line...

    ASSAD MUST GO!!!
    Barack Obama - 2013

    ASSAD can stay as long as he likes
    Barack Obama - 2015

    Yea... GREAT leadership there.. :^/

    Michale
    426

  131. [131] 
    altohone wrote:

    "He was a criminal.. He became a criminal the instant he attacked an innocent person"

    The dead man is the criminal and the killer is innocent based on the claims of the killer... and psychics who get caught lying regularly (i.e. long criminal record, "facts", knowing the motivations of a dead kid...) but who offer no apologies for their dishonesty and insist they are right anyway due to the assertions of a killer with a record of violence and racism.

    It's perfectly clear.

    Of course, given that Zimmerman's violence wasn't just against women, but included an assault on a law enforcement officer, you would think it would be a little more fuzzy even for a lying wingnut due to his supposed vast experience.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said..

    You have absolutely NO FACTS to support ANY of your hysterical ranting about Zimmerman..

    There was no racism save for Martin's attack on Zimmerman..

    Come back and talk to me when you have ANY facts to support your claims..

    Any facts at all...

    Michale
    429

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am actually surprised to see you weighing in on this, Biga...

    I mean, I really slapped yer wee-wee over the racist hate group Black Lives Matter..

    I wouldn't have thought you would want to get slammed down again over your support of racism and hatred...

    But, as I said, if you have any FACTS, relevant facts, to support your claims, by all means.. Show them..

    But you and I both know you have no facts... We've been on this rodeo before. You come back with nothing but immature personal attacks and childish name-calling, I slap you down hard and then you run away...

    I was content to simply ignore you and laugh my ass off at your inane wallowing..

    But, hay... I need to get my comment count up and this seems to be the only way to do it, so...

    Bring it on... :D

    Michale
    432

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news..

    Global Warming strikes again!!

    Biggest Storm This Season Breaks Daily Snowfall Record In Denver
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/12/15/biggest-storm-this-season-breaks-daily-snowfall-record-in-denver/#comments

    It's actually funny... Denver just broke a snowfall record that was set way back in 1897...

    Wonder if it was Global Warming that caused THAT snowfall as well! :D

    But the good news is, Obama has single-handedly solved the Global Warming crisis in Paris...

    And, since Global Warming is the root cause of ALL terrorism (according to the Hysterical Left Wingery) that means Obama has solved the terrorism problem as well!

    Whatta guy!!!

    Now, please.. Can the Hysterical Left Wingery please shut the frak up about Global Warming?? :D

    "Give it a rest, Rodney.."
    -Dr Carson Beckett, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

    Michale
    433

  135. [135] 
    TheStig wrote:

    134- Florida Man Has No Earthly Idea of How Snow Works.

  136. [136] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wonder if it was Global Warming that caused THAT snowfall as well! :D

    Well, wonder no more as it most decidedly is.

    It's really interesting how the melting polar ice caps and the rest of it impacts upon the jet stream. The jet stream is our weather-maker, you know ...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really interesting how the melting polar ice caps and the rest of it impacts upon the jet stream. The jet stream is our weather-maker, you know ...

    Yet, the polar ice caps AREN'T melting..

    That's kinda a problem for the whole GLOBAL WARMING religion, eh? :D

    But, let me see if I have this straight.

    Global Warming causes a LACK of snow..

    And...

    Global Warming causes an ABUNDANCE of snow...

    Hmmmmmm

    Sounds an awful lot like "GOD'S WILL" to me...

    But what does it matter! Obama SOLVED the Global Warming "catastrophe"!!

    Hallelujah!!! :D

    Michale
    435

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yet, the polar ice caps AREN'T melting..

    Ah, yeah ... they kind of are.

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    134- Florida Man Has No Earthly Idea of How Snow Works.

    Of course I know who snow works..

    Humans cause it!

    "Dooooyyyyyyyyyyyy"
    -Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH

    But I thought with Global WARMING things would.... yunno... get warmer??

    I mean, why call it Global WARMING if cold things happen??

    Again.....

    "Dooooyyyyyyyyyyyy"
    -Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D

    Michale
    436

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The climate is like life on earth ... they're complicated.

    So, it is not very wise to engage in simple analyses of the problems that challenge us, on either count.

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet, the polar ice caps AREN'T melting..

    Ah, yeah ... they kind of are.

    Yea, I know... According to the Global Warming fanatics, they are melting..

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/28/article-2415191-185A43E400000578-982_640x365.jpg

    But... according to... yunno... REALITY, they are not...

    Who ya gonna trust?? The fanatics or your own eyes?? :D

    Besides, according to the Global Warming scientists, all polar ice was supposed to be GONE by now...

    And yet.. the ice fields and sheets are bigger than ever and growing...

    But hay... I am a fair guy.. You get the entirety of the Left Wingery to quit driving cars and quit exhaling and I'll see what I can do with the normal people.. :D

    Michale
    437

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But I thought with Global WARMING things would.... yunno... get warmer?? I mean, why call it Global WARMING if cold things happen??

    I know this is adding to your increasing comment count - which is good, anyway you slice it - but, it makes you sound like a simpleton. Which is not good. :)

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    The climate is like life on earth ... they're complicated.

    So, it is not very wise to engage in simple analyses of the problems that challenge us, on either count.

    I completely agree...

    Therefore, we shouldn't go mucking around with things we clearly cannot understand...

    For, if we actually understood the climate, the Global Warming fanatics would have at least ONE correct prediction or ONE correct model under their belt...

    But they have none, so their ignorance is on display for all to see..

    Michale
    438

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know this is adding to your increasing comment count - which is good, anyway you slice it - but, it makes you sound like a simpleton. Which is not good. :)

    No, the "simpletons" are the ones who change the name of their religion when the planet doesn't co-operate...

    I am simply there to remind them that it's GLOBAL WARMING... They all said so.. :D

    Michale
    439

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I agree.. ANYTHING that gets my comment count up there is a good thing. :D

    Michale
    440

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    When a group has to "market" their science, it ain't science...

    It's activism...

    Michale
    441

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, the Arctic ice shield is melting. In Antarctica, we have a bit of a paradox that is difficult for some to understand because it's also a bit counter-intuitive... a double whammy, in other words. :)

    Seriously, the ice shield in the Antarctic is expanding during the winter season because - hope you're sitting down, Michale - the ice below the ocean surface IS melting and the cold water is less dense and therefore rises to the top where it is prone to freezing.

    It's complicated, ain't it?

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not marketing, Michale ... rather,PUBLIC EDUCATION.

    Which, I'm told, is always a good thing. :)

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Climate change is the more accurate description of all that is happening, depending on which part of the planet you happen to be observing or talking about.

    Parts of the globe are heating up, other parts are getting colder. ON AVERAGE, we have global warming.

    Parts of the globe are getting drier, other parts are flooding. All part and parcel of the ongoing - and, largely irreversible - changes in our climate.

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Therefore, we shouldn't go mucking around with things we clearly cannot understand...

    Well, some of us have a better understanding of things than do others.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not marketing, Michale ... rather,PUBLIC EDUCATION.

    You mean, PUBLIC INDOCTRINATION..

    Complete with jail time for those who do no toe the Party Line..

    I mean, honestly.

    What kind of "SCIENCE" is it when the alleged "scientists" want to JAIL those who dissent?!?

    That ain't no "science" that *I* have ever heard of...

    Michale
    442

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, some of us have a better understanding of things than do others.

    Would those be the ones who have NEVER had an accurate prediction or model??

    THOSE are the ones you think have a "better understanding"?? :D

    Shirley you jest...

    Michale
    443

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Climate change is the more accurate description of all that is happening, depending on which part of the planet you happen to be observing or talking about.

    You are not up on current events..

    It's called "Climate Disruption" now.. :D

    Marketing.. Nothing but marketing...

    Michale
    444

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It will always be climate change to me. :)

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    It will always be climate change to me. :)

    And you will always be special to me.. :D

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Aw, shucks ... :)

  157. [157] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    WAIT A SECOND!

    Define special.

    Heh.

  158. [158] 
    TheStig wrote:

    You don't pull on Superman's cape.
    You don't spit into the wind.
    You don't argue with a Canadian about snow.

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Once again, we'll be enjoying a green Christmas in sunny southern Ontario.

    Winnipeg, not so much. :)

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't pull on Superman's cape.
    You don't spit into the wind.
    You don't argue with a Canadian about snow.

    Amen to that!!! :D

    Michale
    447

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's the glorious jet stream, you know.

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    WAIT A SECOND!

    Define special.

    Heh.

    heh

    The good kind of special.. :D

    Michale
    448

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, el Nino, of course. :)

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The good kind of special.. :D

    Excellent!

  165. [165] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Yea, I know... According to the Global Warming fanatics, they are melting..

    But... according to... yunno... REALITY, they are not...

    Only if you cherry pick the years. How about the real science: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/09/steady-decline-summer-minimum-approaching/

    I know, I know you are way too political to actually read the real science on the subject...

    Would those be the ones who have NEVER had an accurate prediction or model??

    Bullshit. I proved this wrong and you acknowledged that fact.

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would those be the ones who have NEVER had an accurate prediction or model??

    Bullshit. I proved this wrong and you acknowledged that fact.

    Actually, you never proved it wrong..

    You demanded to know what the definition of 'is' was.... Oh no, wait.. That's Bubba...

    You demanded to know what the definition of "accurate" was and you refused to provide ANY evidence to support your claim until I defined "accurate"...

    But the definition of "accurate" is pretty well set, so I didn't see the need to play your game...

    Suffice it to say that there has NEVER been an accurate model by the Global Warming fanatics.. There has NEVER been an accurate prediction by the Global Warming fanatics...

    Michale
    449

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only if you cherry pick the years. How about the real science: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/09/steady-decline-summer-minimum-approaching/

    ACK!!!!!!

    ICE MELTS IN THE SUMMER!!!!

    "Oh my god, what a fucking nightmare!!!!"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    According to Al Gore and all the other Global Warming Fanatics, the polar caps were to be ice free by now..

    According to some moronic Brit, children in this generation wouldn't know what snow is!

    I could go on and on and on and on about all the failed predictions the Global Warming fanatics have made over the last couple decades..

    "Failed... Failed... IMPRESSIVELY failed..."
    -Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

    :D

    The simple fact is, the fanatics don't know dick.. They are guessing.. And they are guessing in such a way as to put billions and billions of dollars in their own pockets..

    But hay...

    What does it matter!??

    Obama and the UN have SOLVED the Global Warming catastrophe!!!

    The world is saved!!!!

    OH FRABJOUS DAY!!!!!

    Now we can finally SHUT UP about Global Warming!!

    Right???

    "Riiiggghhhtt??? Buddy???"
    -Woody, TOY STORY

    :D

    Michale
    450

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now we can finally SHUT UP about Global Warming!!

    Right???

    At least, after the first of the year.. :D

    Michale
    451

  169. [169] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    I get that you're delusional, and that you think you win when you actually lose, but I also thought you were capable of using Google.

    Try it.
    Search- George Zimmerman racist comments

    Your claim that the DOJ "proved" he wasn't a racist is flat out wrong.

    Insufficient evidence to prove Martin was killed in a hate crime motivated by racism is quite different than proving he isn't racist.
    Someone with your "experience" should know that of course.

    Zimmerman's own words, and testimony from relatives, neighbors, coworkers and girlfriends all show he is in fact racist.

    There's even a further similarity with you, in that he too falsely accuses others (in his case Obama) of racism. Check out his bogus "reasoning" while you're doing that search. It's funny.

    While we're on the topic, I seem to recall that your "proof" that BLM is a racist organization was that they booed O'Malley at Netroots.
    There was some booing at the recent GOP debate... were they all racists too?

    I'd also like to note that you failed to challenge most of what I've written about both you and Zimmerman in this thread, so I'll take that as a concession from such a lying wingnut who is once again expressing an interest in groping me for some reason.

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Search- George Zimmerman racist comments

    Sorry, Sonny Jim.. You made the claim. Now back it up...

    Your claim that the DOJ "proved" he wasn't a racist is flat out wrong.

    The Justice Department announced today that the independent federal investigation found insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, officials from the FBI, and the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service met today with Martin’s family and their representatives to inform them of the findings of the investigation and the decision.
    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-investigation-death-trayvon-martin

    You were saying??

    Zimmerman's own words, and testimony from relatives, neighbors, coworkers and girlfriends all show he is in fact racist.

    Yea?? Prove it.. You can't because no such testimony exists..

    On the other hand, plenty of evidence exists of Zimmerman's outreach with black families and such..

    While we're on the topic, I seem to recall that your "proof" that BLM is a racist organization was that they booed O'Malley at Netroots.
    There was some booing at the recent GOP debate... were they all racists too?

    My "proof" that BLM is a racist hate group is there protests where they espoused violence against other races and held signs like BLACK POWER and such...

    If it had been a group of white people holding signs saying WHITE POWER and espousing violence against other races there would be no question that it's a racist hate group...

    I'd also like to note that you failed to challenge most of what I've written about both you and Zimmerman in this thread,

    Really?? I didn't challenge ANYTHING you said about Zimmerman???

    NOW look who is lying?? :D

    Yer out-classed, Biga... Now run away and lick your wounds... :D

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428697/mistrial-freddie-gray-case

    Once again, putting cops on trial to appease a racist community....

    Like the Zimmerman case, this case should NEVER have gone to trial...

    Michale
    489

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428697/mistrial-freddie-gray-case

    Black Lives Matter..

    Except when the black life is a cop, apparently..

    Michale
    495

  173. [173] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Your quote from the DOJ is exactly what I said.
    Insufficient evidence that racism motivated a hate crime is NOT proof that Zimmerman isn't racist.

    Your head in the sand approach is likewise pathetic.
    You choosing not to know the truth isn't "proof".
    Being too afraid to type four words and read what comes up is not the least bit surprising.

    Your revisionism about your "proof" about BLM is a joke. That was not what you claimed in that discussion you wingnut liar.

    You may also note a distinct difference between "most" and "ANYTHING"... which is further proof you are a liar, and a liar who makes false accusations... just like Zimmerman.
    If you're going to accuse me of lying, starting the paragraph by quoting what I wrote that exposes your accusation as false is just dumb.

    And since you're still too much of a wimp to actually challenge MOST of what I wrote despite being given a second chance to do so, the only conclusion one can reach is that you can't.
    Resorting back to trollery in an attempt to change the subject brings us back to your wimpy tendencies.

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your quote from the DOJ is exactly what I said.
    Insufficient evidence that racism motivated a hate crime is NOT proof that Zimmerman isn't racist.

    It's proof that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue a civil rights violation in the incident..

    From the Zimmerman side of things, this incident had NOTHING to do with racism..

    Still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence of Zimmerman's alleged racism..

    If you can't, it proves you are lying..

    Michale
    549

Comments for this article are closed.