timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[Stinger Ray]

I shied away from words like "disaster". I wrote that it would hurt a lot of people, needlessly. It did.

You used very strong words and I think disaster was one of them.

I honestly don't remember Stinger Ray. I remember trying to avoid a 'sky is falling" mentality, because I didn't buy into everything that Obama was saying at the time. I just thought it was needless pain. Honestly, Stinger Ray, what do you think? Because of the sequester, our total national debt is 18.15 trillion today, instead of perhaps 18. 75 trillion. Even if it was 20 trillion, would that be much a difference to us? Would our lives be affected? So what really did we gain by firing all those people or suspending them without pay, and adding people to the unemployment lines? Do you feel better now? I'd like a serious answer please. What did we gain?

I didn't offer an opinion on it at the time. I was critical of your sky is falling posts about it.

I don't care I'd like to get your opinion now.

Of course it didn't help and quite frankly the establishment that you support has no serious intentions to tackle and lower the deficit.

 

[timschochet]

I shied away from words like "disaster". I wrote that it would hurt a lot of people, needlessly. It did.

You used very strong words and I think disaster was one of them.

I honestly don't remember Stinger Ray. I remember trying to avoid a 'sky is falling" mentality, because I didn't buy into everything that Obama was saying at the time. I just thought it was needless pain. Honestly, Stinger Ray, what do you think? Because of the sequester, our total national debt is 18.15 trillion today, instead of perhaps 18. 75 trillion. Even if it was 20 trillion, would that be much a difference to us? Would our lives be affected? So what really did we gain by firing all those people or suspending them without pay, and adding people to the unemployment lines? Do you feel better now? I'd like a serious answer please. What did we gain?

I didn't offer an opinion on it at the time. I was critical of your sky is falling posts about it.

I don't care I'd like to get your opinion now.

Of course it didn't help and quite frankly the establishment that you support has no serious intentions to tackle and lower the deficit.

Well obviously that's not true, since the deficit goes down every year.

But if you meant they have no intention to tackle and lower the overall debt, then you're right. Nobody does. Again, I believe the only answer is to grow ourselves out of it.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I shied away from words like "disaster". I wrote that it would hurt a lot of people, needlessly. It did.

You used very strong words and I think disaster was one of them.

I honestly don't remember Stinger Ray. I remember trying to avoid a 'sky is falling" mentality, because I didn't buy into everything that Obama was saying at the time. I just thought it was needless pain. Honestly, Stinger Ray, what do you think? Because of the sequester, our total national debt is 18.15 trillion today, instead of perhaps 18. 75 trillion. Even if it was 20 trillion, would that be much a difference to us? Would our lives be affected? So what really did we gain by firing all those people or suspending them without pay, and adding people to the unemployment lines? Do you feel better now? I'd like a serious answer please. What did we gain?

I didn't offer an opinion on it at the time. I was critical of your sky is falling posts about it.

I don't care I'd like to get your opinion now.

Of course it didn't help and quite frankly the establishment that you support has no serious intentions to tackle and lower the deficit.

Well obviously that's not true, since the deficit goes down every year. But if you meant they have no intention to tackle and lower the overall debt, then you're right. Nobody does. Again, I believe the only answer is to grow ourselves out of it.

. I meant the overall debt.

 

[dparker713]

We're already screwed so let's do nothing.

China's gonna cheat so let's do nothing.

It's gonna be painful short term so let's do nothing.

Assuming that the scientists are correct, I just don't find any of these to be acceptable arguments. I mean are we really just going to let things go year after year until the calamities start happening? Again, if the scientists are right, our grandkids are going to look at us in horror and say "why didn't you DO something? You knew it was going to be bad. Why didn't you at least try?" What will we say to them? Nobody wanted to be bothered?

No, the solution is not marginal reductions. The solution is new energy technologies that allow for cheaper energy. Subsidizing this research and development is an actual solution. The carbon taxes are just market distortions without any long term plan.

 

[timschochet]

We're already screwed so let's do nothing.

China's gonna cheat so let's do nothing.

It's gonna be painful short term so let's do nothing.

Assuming that the scientists are correct, I just don't find any of these to be acceptable arguments. I mean are we really just going to let things go year after year until the calamities start happening? Again, if the scientists are right, our grandkids are going to look at us in horror and say "why didn't you DO something? You knew it was going to be bad. Why didn't you at least try?" What will we say to them? Nobody wanted to be bothered?

No, the solution is not marginal reductions. The solution is new energy technologies that allow for cheaper energy. Subsidizing this research and development is an actual solution. The carbon taxes are just market distortions without any long term plan.

At this point I'm kind of in favor of both.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Lowering the debt? For the 2009-2016 period?

 

[dparker713]

Just a comment about Trump's idea: I keep hearing people on the news saying that it's unconstitutional.

I don't think this is true. As detestable as it is to keep out all Muslim immigrants or visitors, I don't see how it violates the Constitution. The 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment protect people already here, not those who wish to come here- at least that is my understanding. If in fact Congress passed a law prohibiting Muslims from coming here, it would no doubt be challenged- but the courts would uphold it.

Now Muslims who are already American citizens cannot be prevented from returning to the US.

You might want to brush up on your Fifth Amendment scholarship.

 

[timschochet]

Just a comment about Trump's idea: I keep hearing people on the news saying that it's unconstitutional.

I don't think this is true. As detestable as it is to keep out all Muslim immigrants or visitors, I don't see how it violates the Constitution. The 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment protect people already here, not those who wish to come here- at least that is my understanding. If in fact Congress passed a law prohibiting Muslims from coming here, it would no doubt be challenged- but the courts would uphold it.

Now Muslims who are already American citizens cannot be prevented from returning to the US.

You might want to brush up on your Fifth Amendment scholarship.

Please explain. I'm all ears.

 

[timschochet]

Frank's 100rh birthday.

So I won't be having a poll but who is THE all time greatest singing star in American history: Frank Sinatra or Elvis Presley? I don't think anybody else is close. Michael Jackson might be a distant third.

Frankie or Elvis?

 

[krista4]

Frank's 100rh birthday.

So I won't be having a poll but who is THE all time greatest singing star in American history: Frank Sinatra or Elvis Presley? I don't think anybody else is close. Michael Jackson might be a distant third.

Frankie or Elvis?

Singing star? Not "singer." Hmmmm, I'd go with Elvis over Frank. That's based on "feel" and no particular stats, though.

 

[krista4]

Frank's 100rh birthday.

So I won't be having a poll but who is THE all time greatest singing star in American history: Frank Sinatra or Elvis Presley? I don't think anybody else is close. Michael Jackson might be a distant third.

Frankie or Elvis?

Singing star? Not "singer." Hmmmm, I'd go with Elvis or MJ over Frank. That's based on "feel" and no particular stats, though.

A squillion people a year still trek to godforsaken Memphis just to see Elvis' ####ty-### house and cry at his grave. Frank ain't got nothing there.

 

[timschochet]

Frank's 100rh birthday.

So I won't be having a poll but who is THE all time greatest singing star in American history: Frank Sinatra or Elvis Presley? I don't think anybody else is close. Michael Jackson might be a distant third.

Frankie or Elvis?

Singing star? Not "singer." Hmmmm, I'd go with Elvis over Frank. That's based on "feel" and no particular stats, though.

Yeah I didn't say singer because Sinatra is about a thousand times more skilled than Elvis, that's not close. I think you're right about Elvis, though some of that has to do with his manner of death. Who was a bigger star when alive? (it's probably still Elvis but I'm not sure.)

 

[krista4]

Frank's 100rh birthday.

So I won't be having a poll but who is THE all time greatest singing star in American history: Frank Sinatra or Elvis Presley? I don't think anybody else is close. Michael Jackson might be a distant third.

Frankie or Elvis?

Singing star? Not "singer." Hmmmm, I'd go with Elvis over Frank. That's based on "feel" and no particular stats, though.

Yeah I didn't say singer because Sinatra is about a thousand times more skilled than Elvis, that's not close.I think you're right about Elvis, though some of that has to do with his manner of death. Who was a bigger star when alive? (it's probably still Elvis but I'm not sure.)

Elvis dying much younger certainly had an effect on the "lasting" piece of it. In terms of when they were alive? Yeah, hard to say, if you're talking "at his peak." Frank had a lot of not-so-great years later that would make his average not so good. At their peaks...? Really tough call.

When are you posting your next novel ranking?

 

[dparker713]

Just a comment about Trump's idea: I keep hearing people on the news saying that it's unconstitutional.

I don't think this is true. As detestable as it is to keep out all Muslim immigrants or visitors, I don't see how it violates the Constitution. The 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment protect people already here, not those who wish to come here- at least that is my understanding. If in fact Congress passed a law prohibiting Muslims from coming here, it would no doubt be challenged- but the courts would uphold it.

Now Muslims who are already American citizens cannot be prevented from returning to the US.

You might want to brush up on your Fifth Amendment scholarship.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That's the Fifth Amendment. It applies to the federal government. The highlighted clause has been interpreted to include equal protection. It is this amendment, not the 14th, that largely bars religious discrimination by the federal government. How these protections apply to non-citizens could fill up a law review article, or twenty, but the federal government is not allowed to freely discriminate in these areas.

Now, you could attempt to justify the ban as an act of the Commander in Chief during wartime, but seeing as we are and aren't at war right now, I'd doubt it would stand up to scrutiny.

 

[jon_mx]

Dear (the Colorado Springs shooter): "I'm a warrior for the babies! All the babies that were going to be aborted today!"

Well, I think we can stop wondering about his motive now...

So you are going to stick with your assertion that abortion activists have blood on their hands because of an act of a certifiably insane nutcase? When you apply this standard of blaming acts of terrorism/killing on people associated with a cause/group your opinion at least would have some logically consistency. But since you only apply this standard to people associated with causes/groups you vehemently disagree with (pro-life, anti-immigration, tea party), it makes you a political hack not even worthy of having a discussion with. It is just the opposite side of the coin of the people who do this against Muslims, environmentalists, black activists. You just somehow believe your rhetoric does not stink or have violent acts associated with it, when in fact it does. There is no logical distinction to your position.

 

[timschochet]

Dear (the Colorado Springs shooter): "I'm a warrior for the babies! All the babies that were going to be aborted today!"

Well, I think we can stop wondering about his motive now...

So you are going to stick with your assertion that abortion activists have blood on their hands because of an act of a certifiably insane nutcase? When you apply this standard of blaming acts of terrorism/killing on people associated with a cause/group your opinion at least would have some logically consistency. But since you only apply this standard to people associated with causes/groups you vehemently disagree with (pro-life, anti-immigration, tea party), it makes you a political hack not even worthy of having a discussion with. It is just the opposite side of the coin of the people who do this against Muslims, environmentalists, black activists. You just somehow believe your rhetoric does not stink or have violent acts associated with it, when in fact it does. There is no logical distinction to your position.

Nope. The reason you write this is because you never understood my position from the beginning. I was not speaking of antiabortion activists, but only those political leaders and talk radio hosts who spoke about Planned Parenthood this summer, and not all of them, but the ones who used particularly ugly rhetoric. And I would never use a phrase like "blood on their hands". I wrote that they bore some moral responsibility for this violence. I believe they do. I don't think that makes me a hack at all.You didn't know me back then, but one of the reasons I despise Maxine Waters is because her inflammatory rhetoric helped lead to the Los Angeles riots. You remember the truck driver who was dragged out of his car? Maxine Waters bears some moral responsibility for that crime. Al Sharpton bears moral responsibility for a host of crimes IMO.

As Peter Parker says, with great power comes great responsibility. Those in the public eye need to be careful what they say and how they say it. I would never attempt to legally restrict their ability to say anything. But when they use their platform to spew hateful rhetoric, you're damn right I'm going to hold them responsible for the ugly results.

 

[timschochet]

So Frank vs Elvis? Anybody else have an opinion?

 

[timschochet]

Just a comment about Trump's idea: I keep hearing people on the news saying that it's unconstitutional.

I don't think this is true. As detestable as it is to keep out all Muslim immigrants or visitors, I don't see how it violates the Constitution. The 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment protect people already here, not those who wish to come here- at least that is my understanding. If in fact Congress passed a law prohibiting Muslims from coming here, it would no doubt be challenged- but the courts would uphold it.

Now Muslims who are already American citizens cannot be prevented from returning to the US.

You might want to brush up on your Fifth Amendment scholarship.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That's the Fifth Amendment. It applies to the federal government. The highlighted clause has been interpreted to include equal protection. It is this amendment, not the 14th, that largely bars religious discrimination by the federal government. How these protections apply to non-citizens could fill up a law review article, or twenty, but the federal government is not allowed to freely discriminate in these areas.

Now, you could attempt to justify the ban as an act of the Commander in Chief during wartime, but seeing as we are and aren't at war right now, I'd doubt it would stand up to scrutiny.

Why would this, or any part of the Constitution, apply to non-citizens who aren't currently in our country?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So Frank vs Elvis? Anybody else have an opinion?

Frank.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

So Frank vs Elvis? Anybody else have an opinion?

Elvis was a bigger star, if that's what you're asking. Dude sold 50 million records in about 3 years.

 

[msommer]

So Frank vs Elvis? Anybody else have an opinion?

Frank.

I don't even like Frank Sinatra and I agree with this.

Most able to transform a music style goes to Elvis though.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Dear (the Colorado Springs shooter): "I'm a warrior for the babies! All the babies that were going to be aborted today!"

Well, I think we can stop wondering about his motive now...

So you are going to stick with your assertion that abortion activists have blood on their hands because of an act of a certifiably insane nutcase? When you apply this standard of blaming acts of terrorism/killing on people associated with a cause/group your opinion at least would have some logically consistency. But since you only apply this standard to people associated with causes/groups you vehemently disagree with (pro-life, anti-immigration, tea party), it makes you a political hack not even worthy of having a discussion with. It is just the opposite side of the coin of the people who do this against Muslims, environmentalists, black activists. You just somehow believe your rhetoric does not stink or have violent acts associated with it, when in fact it does. There is no logical distinction to your position.

Nope. The reason you write this is because you never understood my position from the beginning. I was not speaking of antiabortion activists, but only those political leaders and talk radio hosts who spoke about Planned Parenthood this summer, and not all of them, but the ones who used particularly ugly rhetoric. And I would never use a phrase like "blood on their hands". I wrote that they bore some moral responsibility for this violence. I believe they do. I don't think that makes me a hack at all.You didn't know me back then, but one of the reasons I despise Maxine Waters is because her inflammatory rhetoric helped lead to the Los Angeles riots. You remember the truck driver who was dragged out of his car? Maxine Waters bears some moral responsibility for that crime. Al Sharpton bears moral responsibility for a host of crimes IMO.

As Peter Parker says, with great power comes great responsibility. Those in the public eye need to be careful what they say and how they say it. I would never attempt to legally restrict their ability to say anything. But when they use their platform to spew hateful rhetoric, you're damn right I'm going to hold them responsible for the ugly results.

The name you are searching for is Reginald Denny, if my memory serves.

 

[roadkill1292]

When Elvis comes back, he'll show why he was the King.

 

[timschochet]

Dear (the Colorado Springs shooter): "I'm a warrior for the babies! All the babies that were going to be aborted today!"

Well, I think we can stop wondering about his motive now...

So you are going to stick with your assertion that abortion activists have blood on their hands because of an act of a certifiably insane nutcase? When you apply this standard of blaming acts of terrorism/killing on people associated with a cause/group your opinion at least would have some logically consistency. But since you only apply this standard to people associated with causes/groups you vehemently disagree with (pro-life, anti-immigration, tea party), it makes you a political hack not even worthy of having a discussion with. It is just the opposite side of the coin of the people who do this against Muslims, environmentalists, black activists. You just somehow believe your rhetoric does not stink or have violent acts associated with it, when in fact it does. There is no logical distinction to your position.

Nope. The reason you write this is because you never understood my position from the beginning. I was not speaking of antiabortion activists, but only those political leaders and talk radio hosts who spoke about Planned Parenthood this summer, and not all of them, but the ones who used particularly ugly rhetoric. And I would never use a phrase like "blood on their hands". I wrote that they bore some moral responsibility for this violence. I believe they do. I don't think that makes me a hack at all.You didn't know me back then, but one of the reasons I despise Maxine Waters is because her inflammatory rhetoric helped lead to the Los Angeles riots. You remember the truck driver who was dragged out of his car? Maxine Waters bears some moral responsibility for that crime. Al Sharpton bears moral responsibility for a host of crimes IMO.

As Peter Parker says, with great power comes great responsibility. Those in the public eye need to be careful what they say and how they say it. I would never attempt to legally restrict their ability to say anything. But when they use their platform to spew hateful rhetoric, you're damn right I'm going to hold them responsible for the ugly results.

The name you are searching for is Reginald Denny, if my memory serves.

Thank you. I'm typing from my phone and didn't bother to look it up.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Dear (the Colorado Springs shooter): "I'm a warrior for the babies! All the babies that were going to be aborted today!"

Well, I think we can stop wondering about his motive now...

So you are going to stick with your assertion that abortion activists have blood on their hands because of an act of a certifiably insane nutcase? When you apply this standard of blaming acts of terrorism/killing on people associated with a cause/group your opinion at least would have some logically consistency. But since you only apply this standard to people associated with causes/groups you vehemently disagree with (pro-life, anti-immigration, tea party), it makes you a political hack not even worthy of having a discussion with. It is just the opposite side of the coin of the people who do this against Muslims, environmentalists, black activists. You just somehow believe your rhetoric does not stink or have violent acts associated with it, when in fact it does. There is no logical distinction to your position.

Nope. The reason you write this is because you never understood my position from the beginning. I was not speaking of antiabortion activists, but only those political leaders and talk radio hosts who spoke about Planned Parenthood this summer, and not all of them, but the ones who used particularly ugly rhetoric. And I would never use a phrase like "blood on their hands". I wrote that they bore some moral responsibility for this violence. I believe they do. I don't think that makes me a hack at all.You didn't know me back then, but one of the reasons I despise Maxine Waters is because her inflammatory rhetoric helped lead to the Los Angeles riots. You remember the truck driver who was dragged out of his car? Maxine Waters bears some moral responsibility for that crime. Al Sharpton bears moral responsibility for a host of crimes IMO.

As Peter Parker says, with great power comes great responsibility. Those in the public eye need to be careful what they say and how they say it. I would never attempt to legally restrict their ability to say anything. But when they use their platform to spew hateful rhetoric, you're damn right I'm going to hold them responsible for the ugly results.

The name you are searching for is Reginald Denny, if my memory serves.

Thank you. I'm typing from my phone and didn't bother to look it up.

Difficult to remember everything, and that was a long time ago now, has to be two decades.

 

[timschochet]

Again this is from memory, but a day before the original Rodney King verdict, Maxine Waters said that if the police were acquitted, "an insurrection would be justified", or something to that effect. In my lifetime I can't recall a more irresponsible statement from a public official who is supposed to be protecting society.

 

[timschochet]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

Well that's a relief, but suppose the mom radicalized her son too? Tell your friend not to come either; we can't take a chance. And incidentally DW, do the authorities know you spend so much time talking to known Jihadist types?

 

[Doug B]

We're already screwed so let's do nothing.

China's gonna cheat so let's do nothing.

It's gonna be painful short term so let's do nothing.

Assuming that the scientists are correct, I just don't find any of these to be acceptable arguments. I mean are we really just going to let things go year after year until the calamities start happening? Again, if the scientists are right, our grandkids are going to look at us in horror and say "why didn't you DO something? You knew it was going to be bad. Why didn't you at least try?" What will we say to them? Nobody wanted to be bothered?

I'll go to my grave convinced that humanity engineers its way out of the worst effects of climate change. Over the course of several decades ... maybe as long as 200 years or so.

Essentially, I expect humanity to innovate and change technologically on several fronts: new applications of power generation, "amphibious" construction (made to be submerged), terraforming, etc.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

Well that's a relief, but suppose the mom radicalized her son too? Tell your friend not to come either; we can't take a chance.And incidentally DW, do the authorities know you spend so much time talking to known Jihadist types?

The Authorities know much, that is for certain. I guess it depends on with Authorities you are referring to. Interesting, because sometimes I am the Authorities. My secretary tells me I am "the Man".

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

So what your saying is that the terrorists are now recruiting elderly Germans who have a grudge from WWII? This is getting serious.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

So what your saying is that the terrorists are now recruiting elderly Germans who have a grudge from WWII? This is getting serious.

What I'm saying is that there goes my chance to get an homemade stollen for Christmas.

 

[timschochet]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

So what your saying is that the terrorists are now recruiting elderly Germans who have a grudge from WWII? This is getting serious.

What I'm saying is that there goes my chance to get an homemade stollen for Christmas.

I see. So in order to get that pastry, you're willing to let some old SS guard turned Islamist loose in this country to spread havoc?

 

[Joe T]

We're already screwed so let's do nothing.

China's gonna cheat so let's do nothing.

It's gonna be painful short term so let's do nothing.

Assuming that the scientists are correct, I just don't find any of these to be acceptable arguments. I mean are we really just going to let things go year after year until the calamities start happening? Again, if the scientists are right, our grandkids are going to look at us in horror and say "why didn't you DO something? You knew it was going to be bad. Why didn't you at least try?" What will we say to them? Nobody wanted to be bothered?

1. Who's suggesting we should do nothing?

2. I've made these exact same (OK, very similar) arguments to you with regard to the national debt, and you have the same reaction for which you're now castigating others.

1. I'm talking specifically about taxiing carbon based taxes in order to reduce emissions by 3%, which is what is on the table at Paris (scientists would prefer 7%, and some warn that 5% is the absolute minimum, but 3% is what is being discussed.) And I was specifically responding to some of the arguments made in regards to China and the notion that we're screwed anyway, which was written just before I posted. 2. No, your memory is false. My objection to the sequester was that it was so minimal that it had no effect on the national debt. The proper analogy would be if somebody proposed reducing our emissions by 0.1%, and then people being for it because "at least it showed that we TRIED to do something." If that was the proposal on the table I would have the exact same reaction here that I did then. FWIW, I believe the national debt is a serious problem, but it is so large that I don't see any viable solution other than trying to grow ourselves out of it (which we cannot do if we're going to reject trade agreements- are you listening, Hillary? Guess not.)

Didn't you say the sequester was going to be a disaster for people?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

So what your saying is that the terrorists are now recruiting elderly Germans who have a grudge from WWII? This is getting serious.

What I'm saying is that there goes my chance to get an homemade stollen for Christmas.

I see. So in order to get that pastry, you're willing to let some old SS guard turned Islamist loose in this country to spread havoc?

I suppose caution may be in order. As you know the SS had very few female guards, and fewer yet under 10 years old. imagine then the special qualifications and brutality of which she must have been capable to have held that position.

As for the stollen, she mailed me one last year. Even several days old it reminded me of my grandmother's stollen. For that I am willing to risk much.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

So what your saying is that the terrorists are now recruiting elderly Germans who have a grudge from WWII? This is getting serious.

What I'm saying is that there goes my chance to get an homemade stollen for Christmas.

And in that is the problem with America. There is a real danger out there of sleeper cell Nazi's coordinating alliances and attacks with muslim terrorists because they hate our freedom and red solo cups and all you care about is if you are getting dessert or not. Go to Costco and defend America dude.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

So what your saying is that the terrorists are now recruiting elderly Germans who have a grudge from WWII? This is getting serious.

What I'm saying is that there goes my chance to get an homemade stollen for Christmas.

And in that is the problem with America. There is a real danger out there of sleeper cell Nazi's coordinating alliances and attacks with muslim terrorists because they hate our freedom and red solo cups and all you care about is if you are getting dessert or not. Go to Costco and defend America dude.

Really it is more of a breakfast treat than a dessert, per se. Also very appropriate for brunch.

BTW, in my home we sing Silent Night in German accompanied by the guitar. I'm sure that is in a government file somewhere.

 

[B-Deep]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

So what your saying is that the terrorists are now recruiting elderly Germans who have a grudge from WWII? This is getting serious.

What I'm saying is that there goes my chance to get an homemade stollen for Christmas.

I see. So in order to get that pastry, you're willing to let some old SS guard turned Islamist loose in this country to spread havoc?

I suppose caution may be in order. As you know the SS had very few female guards, and fewer yet under 10 years old. imagine then the special qualifications and brutality of which she must have been capable to have held that position.

As for the stollen, she mailed me one last year. Even several days old it reminded me of my grandmother's stollen. For that I am willing to risk much.

reported

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So last night I was discussing Christmas plans with a friend. He is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, educated in America, Germany and England. He obtained his U.S. citizenship over 20 years ago. He is married to a woman born in the U.S. and they have 2 kids.

He wanted to bring his 80 year old mother over here for Christmas. She still resides in Germany, Frankfurt specifically. She is an Elder in her church, has never committed a crime, and worked all her live in a government job which required a low level security clearance. Five years ago she visited friends in Syria. That visit has caused holdups in her ability to travel here my friend tells me. She will not be visiting for Christmas.

So what your saying is that the terrorists are now recruiting elderly Germans who have a grudge from WWII? This is getting serious.

What I'm saying is that there goes my chance to get an homemade stollen for Christmas.

And in that is the problem with America. There is a real danger out there of sleeper cell Nazi's coordinating alliances and attacks with muslim terrorists because they hate our freedom and red solo cups and all you care about is if you are getting dessert or not. Go to Costco and defend America dude.

Really it is more of a breakfast treat than a dessert, per se. Also very appropriate for brunch.

BTW, in my home we sing Silent Night in German accompanied by the guitar. I'm sure that is in a government file somewhere.

It is now. #metadata

Although frankly, that song might just be the only thing in language that sounds better in german.

 

[timschochet]

What about 99 Balloons, Yankee? Much better in German. How about Major Tom?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

What about 99 Balloons, Yankee? Much better in German. How about Major Tom?

There was a point in this thread where we were discussing the historical significance of the 43 men who have occupied the oval office of this country. We are now at a point where we are about to start down a discussion on whether or not 99 Luftballoons is better in its native language as a song.

The terrorists won.

 

[timschochet]

What about 99 Balloons, Yankee? Much better in German. How about Major Tom?

There was a point in this thread where we were discussing the historical significance of the 43 men who have occupied the oval office of this country. We are now at a point where we are about to start down a discussion on whether or not 99 Luftballoons is better in its native language as a song.The terrorists won.

Well we've wasted a lot of time on pointless topics. That's my fault. We need to get more serious now. Do both versions mention Captain Kirk?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What about 99 Balloons, Yankee? Much better in German. How about Major Tom?

There was a point in this thread where we were discussing the historical significance of the 43 men who have occupied the oval office of this country. We are now at a point where we are about to start down a discussion on whether or not 99 Luftballoons is better in its native language as a song.

The terrorists won.

• Some believe it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love. -Gandalf

 

[dparker713]

Just a comment about Trump's idea: I keep hearing people on the news saying that it's unconstitutional.

I don't think this is true. As detestable as it is to keep out all Muslim immigrants or visitors, I don't see how it violates the Constitution. The 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment protect people already here, not those who wish to come here- at least that is my understanding. If in fact Congress passed a law prohibiting Muslims from coming here, it would no doubt be challenged- but the courts would uphold it.

Now Muslims who are already American citizens cannot be prevented from returning to the US.

You might want to brush up on your Fifth Amendment scholarship.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That's the Fifth Amendment. It applies to the federal government. The highlighted clause has been interpreted to include equal protection. It is this amendment, not the 14th, that largely bars religious discrimination by the federal government. How these protections apply to non-citizens could fill up a law review article, or twenty, but the federal government is not allowed to freely discriminate in these areas.

Now, you could attempt to justify the ban as an act of the Commander in Chief during wartime, but seeing as we are and aren't at war right now, I'd doubt it would stand up to scrutiny.

Why would this, or any part of the Constitution, apply to non-citizens who aren't currently in our country?

Because it is just as much about the rights of citizens as it is a prohibition on the government.

 

[timschochet]

The McCarthy Era, Continued:

Even before the results of the Hiss trial, President Truman had signed Executive Order 9835, known as "The Loyalty Act". After the Hiss trial, it began to be enforced.

Apart from its other outrages, the Loyalty Act encouraged Americans to snoop on colleagues, friends, neighbors, and even relatives. Furthermore, it was an administrative monstrosity. The FBI began stalking "disloyal and subversive persons" by conducting a "name check" of the the two million people on federal payrolls, from mailmen to cabinet members. In addition, the bureau was answerable for disloyalty among the 400,000 annual applicants for government jobs. "Derogatory information" about an individual brought a "full field investigation" into his past, sometimes all the way back to childhood, with agents interrogating those who remembered him, or thought they remembered him, about his habits, associates, and convictions. Accumulated data were weighed by a regional loyalty board which could either dismiss charges or hold a hearing and reach a verdict. Adverse decisions could be appealed to a National Loyalty Review Board in Washington, whose rulings were final.

On what grounds could a mailman, for instance, be fired? Pink slips went to those who had committed treason, engaged in espionage, advocated violent overthrow of the government (already forbidden by the Hatch Act), disclosed official confidences, or belonged to any association which the attorney general defined as "subversive." Proof that a man had engaged in any of these activities need not be absolute; "reasonable grounds for belief" of subversion was enough. The ground rules for hearings were Kafkaesque. Charges were to be stated "specifically and completely" only if, in the judgment of the employing department, "security considerations permit." If not, the accused wasn't even told how or when he was said to have slipped.

He might have learned what he was being charged with had he been granted the time-honored right to confront his accuser, but this, too, was denied him. FBI policy held that identification of informants would hamper future investigations, thus jeopardizing national security. Similarly, the attorney general's list of proscribed organizations, which had been drawn up by the FBI, was above challenge. The groups on it were not allowed to argue their innocence. If a civil servant had held membership in one of them- or, in many cases, if he merely knew someone who belonged- he was given notice. Guilt was, quite literally, by association.

Those victims who were privileged to know why they were being fired received a form which began, "The evidence indicates that" and continued with such accusations as these (taken from the files at the time):

Since 1943 you have been a close associate of ___________, an individual who, evidence in our files indicates, has displayed an active, sympathetic interest in the principles and policies of the Communist Party...

Your name appeared in an article of the April 4 1946 edition of the York Gazette as a sponsor of a mass meeting for the National Committee to Win the Peace, which has been identified as a subversive organization...

During your period of employment at Williams College, you made statements to the effect that you believed "the House Committee on Un-American Activities is a greater threat to civil liberties than the Communist Party..."

The letter would conclude with a notice of dismissal. The luckless ex-employee was then publicly exposed by FBI agents questioning his neighbors and family. Neighbors would then cut him on the street, refused to have anything to do with his wife, forbade their children to play with his. His sons might be barred from the Boy Scouts. He couldn't call upon friends as anybody he contacted would also be immediately under suspicion. There was no employee that would hire him. Many changed their names and moved to new locations where they would not be recognized. Some committed suicide.

 

[timschochet]

89. We Are Water

Wally Lamb

2013, 577 pages

family drama

Wally Lamb reminds me very much of Pat Conroy as a novelist, the main difference being that all of Conroy's books are centered in the American south, and southern culture and history are an essential part of his stories. Lamb's novels take place usually in the northeast, but the setting is less important to him.

Other than that distinction, the same elements are present in both novelists: families torn by dramatic events stretching back years and decades; dysfunction and the necessary healing process, all kinds of abuse, horror, hidden secrets, sexual tension, and parental resentment. In the end though, both authors are essentially optimists: they really do believe that we can all fix our wounds and get better. That's important to me; with very few exceptions, I'm pretty big on a happy ending. Not too many novels that end with a tragic "life sucks" message are going to make this list. (I believe this is a large part of the reason Lamb's other novel that I read, The Hour I First Believed, about Columbine, did not make this list. I won't deny that it was as beautifully written as his other works, but it was simply too depressing and there was no light at the end of the tunnel. I struggled to finish it. )

This one of three Lamb novels on this list, and the least of the three, but still great. The general plot line is about a woman about to marry her female lover, and how her ex-husband of many years deals with the wedding. But of course that's only the barest outline, as we go deep into the family backgrounds of the two main characters, along with several others as well. Lamb offers great commentary on 21st century America, what we think and how we got there. Lamb is a great story teller and narrative writer, and he keeps you turning the pages. This is a deep, thoughtful, serious read, but still very suspenseful.

Up next: She cut off her husband's head and joined the Beverly Hillbillies cast...

 

[jon_mx]

What about 99 Balloons, Yankee? Much better in German. How about Major Tom?

There was a point in this thread where we were discussing the historical significance of the 43 men who have occupied the oval office of this country. We are now at a point where we are about to start down a discussion on whether or not 99 Luftballoons is better in its native language as a song.

The terrorists won.

Really not even a debatable issue. Much much better in German.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a list of 20 of my favorite songs starting with the letter D:

1. "Dakota"- Stereophonics

2. "Dance the Night Away"- Van Halen

3. "Dancing Barefoot"- Patti Smith Group

4. "Dancing in the Moonlight"- King Harvest

5. "Dark Horse"- George Harrison

6. "Day of the Locusts"- Bob Dylan

7. "Dead Man's Party"- Oingo Boingo

8. "Death on Two Legs"- Queen

9. "Death or Glory"- The Clash

10. "Devil Town"- Bright Eyes

11. "Diamonds on the Soles of her Shoes"- Paul Simon

12. "Discovering Japan"- Graham Parker

13. "Dixie Flyer"- Randy Newman

14. "Do I Still Figure In Your Life"- Joe Cocker

15. "Do You Believe"- Melanie

16. "Doctor Jimmy"- The Who

17. "Dog and Butterfly"- Heart

18. "(Don't Fear) The Reaper"- Blue Oyster Cult

19. "Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue"- Crystal Gale

20. "Don't Know Why"- Norah Jones

 

[timschochet]

The Trump thread continues to be somewhat of an entertaining train wreck.

I profoundly disagree with almost everything SIDA! posts in that thread. But he has been labeled a bigot and a racist and that's not at all fair. I've read him quite a bit and I don't believe he is either. In fact, I generally believe he is a good guy who is simply very wrong about immigration and a few other issues.

 

[timschochet]

I think I'm being scammed here. We feed our cat regular Meow Mix, and have for several years. Lately she's started throwing up from time to time, mostly hairballs. My wife decided to take her to the vet. They did a bunch of tests which cost me $600!!! That was the first scam. Now they're saying she's developed an allergy and that we have to buy this special kind of food that is 5 times the cost of Meow Mix.

My wife swears by this vet but this is costing me a lot of money...