GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Pat]

Mr. Young, the source of the chart "floating around" was Snopes, certainly no right wing outlet.
As I posted earlier, time will tell if you are right or not. Your defense of the Ninth Circuit will be borne out likewise.
I personally believe the rhetoric portraying the executive order as a "Muslim Ban" is both misleading and divisive. If the intent was to ban Muslims, far more countries would have fallen under its prohibitions, including those that had linkage to the Orlando, San Bernadino, and Boston Marathon Massacres, or for that matter even 9/11.
Instead, I would suggest that one consider the obvious, that the "ban" was as stated, a delay, not a prohibition upon entry to get the time to figure out what to do. Secondly, the stated purpose of applying the delay to the seven countries listed was that they all have no coherent governments rendering the satisfactory vetting of refugees impossible.

The stated intent was that the government needed time to examine the situation and evaluate options. The left wing hysteria surrounding the issue clouds the fact that there is a perceived threat posed by these groups and the government has admitted it does not have the ability to evaluate those entering the country under the current protocols.

“ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West,” “...And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.”
- CIA director John Brennan before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence June 2016,

“The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet,” “That would be the concern is we would be vetting — databases don’t hold the information on those individuals. “You’re talking about a country that is a failed state, that is — does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the data sets — the police, the intel services — that normally you would go to seek information don’t exist.”
-Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Assistant Director Michael Steinbach’s testimony before congress Feb 2015.

It should also be noted that Two of the ISIL Paris terror attack militants, Ahmad al-Mohammad, a Syrian national from Idlib, Syria, and M al-Mahmod, arrived in Europe via refugee flows it was revealed after the 2015 attack. In addition, Anis Amri, the suspect who in December drove a truck into a Berlin Christmas market was an asylum seeker from Tunisia.

So it would appear that a nation that ignores the threat does so at the peril of its citizens.

I hope we don't determine that Mr. Trump was right by the blood spilled in our streets.

 

[Jeff Young]

You ignore:

1. Trump calling it a Muslim ban during nearly the entirety of his campaign;

2. Giuliani admitting as much last week;

3. the preference for Christian refuges.

It's a Muslim ban. That was its intent.

Now, it had exceptions, and those exceptions were all of the predominatnly Muslim nations in the Middle East that Trump does business with. And, oddly enough, the ones where actual terrorists who have killed Americans came from. Imagine that.

I'd say the blood money is already on Trump's hands.

P.S. Your chart is incomplete, misleading and gives no frame of reference as to time, or the number of appeals filed in each circuit. Conclusion: Misleading and inaccurate.

 

[Pat]

Please reread my post, you seem to ignore the facts and the plausibility that the ban simply is what it appears to be:

1. If it was a Muslim ban, it would have been all Muslim countries, not just the dysfunctional ones. In fact it didn't apply to 87% of the Muslim world. It did not apply to citizens of the six countries with the largest Muslim populations.
You can apply any label and mischaracterization you wish to fit your narrative but one would think that by any contorted view that a "Muslim Ban" would have banned well, most Muslims.

2. The "list" of Muslim nations not affected was not as you suggest, the result of "those that Trump does business with" but was the work product of the prior administration. The order referenced previous laws and findings that designated three of these countries “state sponsors of terrorism” (Iran, Sudan, and Syria) and four of them (Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen) as “countries of concern” who are ineligible to participate in the Visa Waiver Program, according to the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Improvement Act of 2015. The 2015 bill was made law once it was signed by President Obama. The remainder are clearly failed nation states with significant terrorist activity.

3. The Christian slaughter and the refusal of the Obama administration to give it but token lip service is a national disgrace.
You are somehow suggesting that raising the limits above those of the Obama administration is somehow improper preference???
You're content with the 16 Catholics, eight Eastern Orthodox, five Protestants, four Jehovah’s Witnesses, one Greek Orthodox, and 34 refugees self-identified simply as Christians allowed by Mr. Obama during his entire term? That's by any account a travel ban of horrific proportion.

4. But most of all, you ignore the very real threats that we face.

5. As I posted earlier, the 9th Circuit blockage of the travel will upheld, or it won't be. Then we'll know.

 

[Jeff Young]

LOL on point 3.

Do you have ANY evidence that Christians who applied for and qualified for refuge status were denied it by the Obama Administration? Or are you just guessing? I'm going for the latter.

By the way, the actual mix of Syrian refugees allowed in under President Obama was something like 95% Muslim, 5% Christian. Syria is something like 90% Muslim, 10% Christian. So not that different.

You have a LONG way to go before you prove some of the frankly scandalous and offensive right wing tripe -- that President Obama somehow stood by and allowed a slaughter of Christians -- you posted in 3 above.

Instead, you appear to be defending a man who has acknowledged that his fame entitles him to sexually assault females, who bragged about the size of his penis during a Republican primary debate, who engaged in constant and repeated name calling during the campaign, who has been the first Presidential candidate in 40 years to refuse to release his taxes, who has filed tens of thousands of lawsuits and been sued tens of thousands of times for failing to pay contractors, and so on.

You might want to be more concerned about that rather than Sean Hannity brewing up facts to claim President Obama allowed Christians to be slaughtered in Syria.

 

[Jack]

And, here we go again..........

 

[Doug S.]

Yawn...

For every 'constitutional legal scholar' you can name who may agree with you, there are probably 5 others who agree with me.

'Not going to debate the issue...

Well, Larry, for now Jeff appears to have the "street credentials" to be more knowledgeable about this issue than the rest of us. His experience trumps any assertion that there may be more who "probably" agree with an opposing view.

Just my $.02 worth...but a career in law trumps (no pun intended, but I wish it were!) a "probably" from someone who seems to have a lot of "opinions".

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

After the press conference this is most appropriate:

 

[Keith]

I suspect he's referring to the Cambridge 5 spy ring.

Sorry, a bit late to reply - been poorly. Still am. Yes, thank you Pat the (in)famous Cambridge 4 with the mysterious 5th man still debated over. We got taken to the cleaners during that era and if NATO secrets were important during the cold war then after that lot finished - we didn't have many left. Strained the 'special relationship' more than a bit.

Of course, it doesn't really matter now they can trade 'secrets' as much as they like as long as no-one gets killed over it There is some merit to the argument that if no-one has any secrets from each other then the playing field is more levelled, but that was the view taken by the Cambridge Spy Ring, so how timers (and attitudes) have changed.

Then of course all the 'climategate' wallahs are over that way too, so yes, Cambridge and district could be said to lean a little to the left more so than most of our other Uni's.. and that is not a criticism, merely an observation.

 

[Keith]

Hang on a minute, I may have been absent for a while but I distinctly remember Randy setting up a specific religion thread here: http://www.gt40s.com/forum/paddock/48087-gt40s-com-paddock-religion-thread.html#post490352

Trust you guys to link the two topics. It had to happen didn't it?

:wrongforum:

What can one do? :shrug:

 

[Larry L.]

Well, Larry, for now Jeff appears to have the "street credentials" to be more knowledgeable about this issue than the rest of us. His experience trumps any assertion that there may be more who "probably" agree with an opposing view.

Just my $.02 worth...but a career in law trumps (no pun intended, but I wish it were!) a "probably" from someone who seems to have a lot of "opinions".

Cheers!

Doug

If "street credentials", "experience", and 'legal knowledge' meant diddley-squat with regard to whether or not this or that individual's legal o-p-i-n-i-o-n was accurate - it would follow that all SCOTUS decisions would be 9-0, would they not - given the fact that ALL SCOTUS Justices are supposedly extremely 'savvy' with regard to both the U.S. Constitution and federal law? With the exception of the "wise Latina woman" and Kagan, aren't all SCOTUS Justices supposed to be the 'cream of the crop' when it comes to being 'top notch' with regard to both their 'legal minds/knowledge & understanding of the law' and their 'judicial experience'? And yet darned near every decision they hand down is 5-4 (4-4 right now)...right down party lines...even though one opposing 'side' on any issue MUST be wrong.

It's therefore obvious that neither justices, NOR lawyers in general, base their decisions soley upon either the U.S Constitution OR upon written law, but upon their 'i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n' of same...an 'interpretation' which serves their own particular politics/agendas first and foremost.

So, NO..."a career in law" does NOT guarantee any particular lawyer's 'take' on this-or-that legal question is THEEEEEEE 'end-all-and-be-all' on the matter. It's simply his/her 'O-P-I-N-I-O-N'.

 

[Jeff Young]

LOL LOL LOL.

You are as bad with the facts as President Trump is.

Most decisions are in fact 9-0. I just did a quick check on 2013. 60% of the 70 or so decisions the Supreme Court rendered on the merits that year were 9-0. Less than 20% were 5-4.

The fact is the justices tend to agree far more than they don't.

You are being extremely offensive and also hopelessly naïve when you claim judges and lawyers don't base their thinking and decisions on the Constitution and the law. Of course we do. And in many cases, the Constitution and the law is clear. In others it, isn't.

Let's take your favorite example, the 2nd Amendment. It says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Until Heller in 98 or so, the Supreme Court -- liberal and conservative alike -- interpreted that to mean the right to own a gun was collective, and that pretty much any regulatin of firearm use was permitted.

This was based on the fact that at the time of the Constitution, the states were split. Some had an individual right, some a collective, militia based one. The history of the clause itself is garbled, with various formulations of it being offered to the Constitutional convention in 1787 for approval.

What is especially damning to your frankly simplistic and incorrect approach to this, is the fact that a very clear formulation of the clause giving an individual right to own guns ot the people was submitted to and rejected by the Constitutional Convention.

What the founders ACTUALLY did was give us a garbled clause, as a compromise, for us to work out later. And for nearly 200 years, that meant no invididual right. And Chief Justice Burger, a conservative, is correct. The NRA claiming (and convincing folks like you who don't know the history and don't know any better) that there has always been an individual right is just a lie.

Now, I don't disagree with Heller. It is one of at least two possible interpretations of a garbled clause. But Heller does effectively do away with the Militia clause, and in doing so violates a cornerstone principle of constitutional law -- all words in a clause must be given meaning. On the other hand, saying there IS no individual right is violative the last half of the clause which clearly grants the right ot the people.

Claiming any of this is simple, or easy, or clear, just means you have an agenda, rather than you are trying to figure out the right answer.

But let's go further. You claimed above that the words "shall not infringe" means there can be NO laws on gun regulation. That's clearly not what the founders intended. There were all kinds of gun regulation in 1787 (Catholics couldn't own guns in some places, felons in others, some towns banned them altogether, etc.). But more importantly, your position immediately produces absurd results.

1. Are you saying 2 year olds have the right to own guns?
2. Dangerous felons?
3. Are you saying Ihave the right to own a tank or a bazooka?
4. Are you saying that if I am diagnosed with a serious mental illness, I still have a right to be armed?

Really?

ALL tough questions of law and Constitutional interpretation require interpretation and we all bring our experience and biases to that interpretation. Smart folks recognize that and try to account for their biases in determining how the law should be applied in a particularly complicated situation. It's the delusional, and dangerous, folk who claim it is all so simple and clear and they are right.

And yes, you are being offensive in how you characterize lawyers, judges and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. And just flat out wrong. Both had accomplished more by age 30 than you will in your entire life.

Kagan: Princeton, Oxford, Harvard Law, clerked for the Supreme Court, White House Counsel, Dean of Harvard Law School, first female Solicitor General.

Sotomayor: Princeton, Yale Law, ADA in New York, federal district court judge, federal appellate judge.

Larry, you are an unusually misinformed person, and you express that information in ways that is pretty offensive sometime. Might want to think on that.

 

[Doug S.]

Wow, Larry...seems the facts don't support your opinion; however, having said that (and expecting that you are firmly in the Trump camp) perhaps KelleyAnn can offer some of her "alternative facts".

Oh, yeah...forget...those "exercises in truth" don't always work out right for the Trump camp.

It is, interestingly, entertaining the way this administration has been in shambles from the very beginning.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

Mr. Young: You're one of the last people on the planet who should be lecturing anyone about making "offensive" comments! Perhaps you might want to "think on that."

I cannot recall any post you've ever made wherein you haven't at least insulted the intelligence of anyone who's disagreed with your point of view...as in the above post, for instance: "Smart folks recognize that and try to account for their biases in determining how the law should be applied in a particularly complicated situation. It's the delusional, and dangerous, folk who claim it is all so simple and clear and they are right." IOW, you're implying (if not outright declaring) anyone who disagrees with your stance on this-or-that must therefore be 'stupid', "delusional", and/or "dangerous"...not to mention "hopelessly naïve."

I do have to recognize and acknowledge, however, that post-Randy's warning, you have somehow managed to tone down the insults and name-calling considerably. 'Admirable accomplishment, that. (No sarcasm intended.)

Oh, and speaking of being "bad with the facts", you said I "(claimed) judges and lawyers don't base their thinking and decisions on the Constitution and the law." No, I did NOT. I said: "It's therefore obvious that neither justices, NOR lawyers in general, base their decisions solely upon either the U.S Constitution OR upon written law, but upon their 'i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n' of same..." That illustrates one of the reasons why I consider attempting to debate anything point-by-point with you to be a complete waste of time...and 'why I no longer do so. 'Too much time has to be spent pointing out/correcting/debunking 'spin'.

'The feathers' are calling, so, g'night. leased:

 

[Keith]

i would have preferred you answer Jeff's quite lucid explanation regarding the 2nd Amendment Larry. It is a very interesting conundrum. As a casual observer, putting the most simplistic interpretation on it, it appears to mean that if you belong to an 'organised' militia (big debating point!) you not only have the right to 'bear' arms, but to take them home with you. Which of course is a somewhat crucial necessity if the said militia is to be called out in an emergency in the middle of the night. "Who's got the key of the gun cupboard Robert? I don't know James, I thought you had it" etc etc and so forth...

Other than that, there doesn't seem to be an implied right to walk down Main St carrying an AR15 which people are ludicrously trying to do in the USA with monotonous regularity. Talk about making it hard for the unfortunate LEO's..

You can't fix stupid...

 

[Steve]

Keith, your point is well put. The 2nd amendment is anything but cut and dry, however the vocal extremes of the argument (i.e, "there are no militias and therefore gun ownership should either be banned or heavily regulated" vs "the 2nd amendment says I can own any damn gun I want, except an M1 Abrams tank (only 'cause I can't afford it) tend to hold a lot of influence. Similar to the abortion debate.

BTW, the AR15 and assault weapon debate is really rather superfluous. Personally, I have a hard time understanding the need to own one, but the simple fact is the deaths associated with them is minuscule. By far, most deaths are via handguns. Most of those deaths are suicides too.

 

[Keith]

Yes Steve I see all of that and I used the AR example as the most prolific 'long rifle' in private ownership. I wasn't alluding to a threat as such just the ludicrous sight of people going to the mall with one slung over their shoulders. I think people in the USA need to step back a little from the debate and try to interject a little common sense into the arguments (fat chance - it doesn't happen on here so why should it anywhere else?).

It seems clear to me that America is never going to "disarm" and I believe the threat to do so whether implied or tacit should be reduced so as to allow such debate, but here's the cruncher: I believe the USA is actually imploding and some states have never been as close to secession than 156 years ago. It seems pointless trying to mount a national campaign for or against gun control when you have 50 odd different points of view, so perhaps the Fed should step back from trying to enforce the unenforceable else they may "force" some unintended (and quite tragic) consequences..

Well, that's one 'foreigners' view anyway. I'll bet there's 1,000 others!

I'll be quite honest though, I've watched a few gun channels on YouTube of late, and many are informative and professional while others, if you pardon me, seem just a hair short of deranged. You know, the kind that screams 2nd Amendment rights from the rooftops while denying anyone else a viewpoint under the 1st Amendment.

 

[Larry L.]

i would have preferred you answer Jeff's quite lucid explanation regarding the 2nd Amendment Larry.

'Happy to.

The "militia" straw man was laid to rest by the Supreme Court some time ago when it ruled (in one of a very few decisions it has gotten right in the past few years or so IMHO) that The Founders intended the right to keep and bear to be an individual right. (If one reads the Federalist Papers that's pretty darned clear.) NOWHERE in the 2nd Amend did The Founders say ONLY militia members have the right to keep and bear...they said "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear..."

Further; if The Founders had intended there be any preconditions, prerequisites, individual qualifications, standards, or whatever ELSE one must meet before one could exercise his/her right keep and bear - they'd have listed them. But, they included no such list. How much more clear could they have been, then, that they intended there be "no laws" infringing...infringing...infringing on "the people's" right to keep and bear? I submit they couldn't have.

Relative to that point; The Founders did NOT say things like, "the people can carry over here...but not over there"..."the people can carry in the open - but NOT concealed"..."The people must get government's PERMISSION to carry concealed (get a permit) by meeting certain standards AND paying government a FEE". It should be noted here that one needs NOBODY'S permission to exercise a RIGHT. A "right" becomes a privilege at that point. So, there IS more than "an implied right to walk down Main St carrying an AR15". Yeeew darned betcha we have that right.

Oh, speaking of what we supposedly can or cannot carry; there's a tired 'ole song' about how The Founders had no way to foresee the creation of weapons like the AR-15, and, therefore, people shouldn't be able to own/carry weapons of that sort...to say nothing about carrying 'em down the street. HOGWASH. The Founders used the word "arms" precisely because they knew weapons tech would advance over the years and they wanted to be sure "the people's" right to keep and bear wasn't restricted to the flintlocks and muskets of their day.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infringe:


act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
<TABLE class="vk_tbl vk_gy"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=lr_dct_nyms_ttl style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px">synonyms:</TD> <TD>restrict (!!!), limit, curb, check, encroach on; More undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise
"the surveillance infringed on his rights"



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apply the above definition to any "gun law" we have here in the U.S. and I defy you to tell me how that law does NOT "infringe" on our right to keep and bear in one way or another.

'Have to cut this short. I have an 8 A.M. appointment...

:chug:

 

[Keith]

Thanks Larry, but your erudite explanation is at the 'extreme' end of an 'interpretation' whether it be by a judge or a molasses farmer (I grant you a judges interpretation might carry a bit more weight but modern America being what it is and Trump becoming POTUS, one has to wonder). Interpretations of ancient laws are constantly being 'reinterpreted' if only to suit the changing times and political climate, so it isn't written in stone.

I put it to the common sense of the people to make this all work without division, but common sense seems to have fled the USA and jumped over the wall of late.

I don't mean to be rude Larry, but your sentence: "The Founders used the word "arms" precisely because they knew weapons tech would advance over the years and they wanted to be sure "the people's" right to keep and bear wasn't restricted to the flintlocks and muskets of their day."

Is, to say the least, er, fanciful. Is that why the US Army kept the B.A.R 1918 for 60 years past it's use-by date, so the 'people' could catch up?

There. That's pretty polite for the good old Paddock :thumbsup: And I now expect a torrent of Limey based abuse..

08:00 Appointment? I thought only Bail Bondsmen & melon pickers started that early :stunned:

 

[Larry L.]

...your sentence: "The Founders used the word "arms" precisely because they knew weapons tech would advance over the years and they wanted to be sure "the people's" right to keep and bear wasn't restricted to the flintlocks and muskets of their day."

Is, to say the least, er, fanciful...

"Fanciful"? Hardly. Just think about the logic behind their use of the non-specific word "arms" for more than 3 nanoseconds.

...Is that why the US Army kept the B.A.R 1918 for 60 years past it's use-by date, so the 'people' could catch up?

'Nonsensical question/conclusion. WHY would "the people" need 60 years to "catch up" with the army when supposedly (at least according to the 2nd Amend) "the people" could have bought B.A.R.s at any time they wished during that 60 year period???

...Interpretations of ancient laws are constantly being 'reinterpreted' if only to suit the changing times and political climate, so it isn't written in stone.

HOW could "changing times" possibly affect the meaning of "NO LAW...NO LAW...NO LAW INFRINGING"??? "No" means NO...'none'...'zero'. Not 'if', or 'maybe', or 'under certain circumstances', or 'no...unless you don't care to see it that way'.

...And I now expect a torrent of Limey based abuse...

...'sorry to disappoint! leased:

 

[Keith]

No abuse. Relieved.

So, Bail Bondsman then yes? :laugh:

The B.A.R. thing was just me showing off my knowledge of US guns mate - just a bit of levity.:thumbsup:

Sorry though, "Arms" surely meant just that. Muskets, pistols, swords, daggers brass bed knobs. As such weapons hadn't changed much in 200 years at this point and I cannot believe they saw a sea change coming. I agree it's a generic term written (from a non aligned observers perspective) however surely for convenience and the avoidance of unnecessary detail. It surely didn't mean cannons or grenade launchers by any stretch. I cannot also believe that such an August body could have visualised the grief this clause has caused stirred up by commercially interested parties.

I really think the American people much as I love them, have allowed themselves to be suckered into this endless circular argument (you can't call it a debate) where all meaning appears to have been lost, by entities making vast bucks out of the process, and is once again setting brother against brother.

I am interested in the subject and I have no view for or against gun control in the USA. Whatever works for y'all is fine by me. I just want y'all to get along, you know apple pie & '55 Chevys, that sort of thing..