So, what happens if other countries start banning christians, hindus, Buddhists, etc. Or, if they start banning Americans, or Germans, or Italians?

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:if the last few days have proven anything about the "pro-life" hypocrites, it's what most of us have always known:
a) "pro-life" is dependent on race, religion, socioeconomic status and cultural attachment.
b) there is a big difference in being truly pro-life versus simply "pro-birth".

Bullshit. Quit trying to compare convicted murderers and rapists to innocent children.

I'm tired the whole "Republicans don't care about children" shit being thrown in here by the proponents of butchering those children in the womb as if that's the moral high ground. That's a fucking joke.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Bullshit.  Quit trying to compare convicted murderers and rapists to innocent children.  

I'm tired the whole "Republicans don't care about children" shit being thrown in here by the proponents of butchering those children in the womb as if that's the moral high ground.   That's a fucking joke.

Goose perpetuating the stereotype of Republicans only caring about humans inside of the womb. Might want to tone down the whole butchering children schtick.

Or not, we do have freedom of speech... until your boy takes that away from us in the name of national security.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Bullshit. Quit trying to compare convicted murderers and rapists to innocent children.

I'm tired the whole "Republicans don't care about children" shit being thrown in here by the proponents of butchering those children in the womb as if that's the moral high ground. That's a fucking joke.

so you're not pro-life.

Thanks for playing.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: so you're not pro-life.

Thanks for playing.

So you set all the rules? Not for me.

Three months ago, Candidate Trump promised that on Day One of his presidency he would, if elected, "suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur." President Trump didn't get around to that until Day Seven, which means he was a week late. Yet everyone is acting as if this all came out of the blue.

Nor is what Trump has done particularly unusual, let alone extreme.

The countries involved in the 90-day suspension — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — weren't named in Trump's executive order. They were listed by the Obama administration as countries of special concern under a 2015 law that requires anyone who even visited one of these terror-prone countries to undergo special scrutiny before coming to the U.S. — even if they hail from a country that otherwise doesn't require a visa to visit the U.S.

President Obama himself barred large groups of immigrants from entering the U.S. at least six times out of national security concerns, according to a review last June by the Washington Examiner. In 2011, the administration suspended refugee processing from Iraq for six months to make sure terrorists weren't exploiting the program.

The Examiner also found that "President Bill Clinton issued six immigrant bans; George W. Bush six immigrant bans; and former President Ronald Reagan four. And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians after Tehran seized the U.S. embassy."

Nor is Trump's refugee cap in any way draconian. Data from the Migration Policy Institute shows that, while the cap was higher under the previous two presidents, the actual number of refugees admitted over the past 15 years has been at or below 50,000 most of the time. In fact, the average number of refugees admitted under Bush was 48,000 a year.

LooseGoose wrote:Are We Going To Freak Out Every Time Trump Does What He Promised?

Three months ago, Candidate Trump promised that on Day One of his presidency he would, if elected, "suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur." President Trump didn't get around to that until Day Seven, which means he was a week late. Yet everyone is acting as if this all came out of the blue.

Nor is what Trump has done particularly unusual, let alone extreme.

The countries involved in the 90-day suspension — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — weren't named in Trump's executive order. They were listed by the Obama administration as countries of special concern under a 2015 law that requires anyone who even visited one of these terror-prone countries to undergo special scrutiny before coming to the U.S. — even if they hail from a country that otherwise doesn't require a visa to visit the U.S.

President Obama himself barred large groups of immigrants from entering the U.S. at least six times out of national security concerns, according to a review last June by the Washington Examiner. In 2011, the administration suspended refugee processing from Iraq for six months to make sure terrorists weren't exploiting the program.

The Examiner also found that "President Bill Clinton issued six immigrant bans; George W. Bush six immigrant bans; and former President Ronald Reagan four. And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians after Tehran seized the U.S. embassy."

Nor is Trump's refugee cap in any way draconian. Data from the Migration Policy Institute shows that, while the cap was higher under the previous two presidents, the actual number of refugees admitted over the past 15 years has been at or below 50,000 most of the time. In fact, the average number of refugees admitted under Bush was 48,000 a year.

LooseGoose wrote:Are We Going To Freak Out Every Time Trump Does What He Promised?

Three months ago, Candidate Trump promised that on Day One of his presidency he would, if elected, "suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur." President Trump didn't get around to that until Day Seven, which means he was a week late. Yet everyone is acting as if this all came out of the blue.

Nor is what Trump has done particularly unusual, let alone extreme.

The countries involved in the 90-day suspension — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — weren't named in Trump's executive order. They were listed by the Obama administration as countries of special concern under a 2015 law that requires anyone who even visited one of these terror-prone countries to undergo special scrutiny before coming to the U.S. — even if they hail from a country that otherwise doesn't require a visa to visit the U.S.

President Obama himself barred large groups of immigrants from entering the U.S. at least six times out of national security concerns, according to a review last June by the Washington Examiner. In 2011, the administration suspended refugee processing from Iraq for six months to make sure terrorists weren't exploiting the program.

The Examiner also found that "President Bill Clinton issued six immigrant bans; George W. Bush six immigrant bans; and former President Ronald Reagan four. And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians after Tehran seized the U.S. embassy."

Nor is Trump's refugee cap in any way draconian. Data from the Migration Policy Institute shows that, while the cap was higher under the previous two presidents, the actual number of refugees admitted over the past 15 years has been at or below 50,000 most of the time. In fact, the average number of refugees admitted under Bush was 48,000 a year.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Are We Going To Freak Out Every Time Trump Does What He Promised?

So, he had at least 7 days to implement and communicate a successful plan? And not the shit show that occurred?

And you're bragging about it?

It was kind of a disaster. Are you so blinded that you don't see that?

Why are you defending this clown?

LooseGoose wrote:

InTenSity wrote:
As harsh as this sounds. They don't give a Fuck because that boy wasn't in the womb. Actual human life means Jack shit to a Republican. Fantasy fetus is worth fighting for.

Intensity?   That's fucking outrageous.  We know your circumstances but you don't know all of ours.   For you to say that is well beyond the pale.   You ask people here not to be crude by using certain terms then you paint HALF the FUCKING country with that SHIT?   You need to think harder on it.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Goose perpetuating the stereotype of Republicans only caring about humans inside of the womb. Might want to tone down the whole butchering children schtick.

Or not, we do have freedom of speech... until your boy takes that away from us in the name of national security.

Sorry, not a schtick. You give me what word you'd prefer I use for a procedure that dismembers them then vacuums them into the garbage? If it's descriptive enough, I'll use it instead.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Are We Going To Freak Out Every Time Trump Does What He Promised?

but.. Obama!!



funny how republicans are using a Kenyan born socialist that they admired so much as their new standard for leadership..

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Intensity?   That's fucking outrageous.  We know your circumstances but you don't know all of ours.   For you to say that is well beyond the pale.   You ask people here not to be crude by using certain terms then you paint HALF the FUCKING country with that SHIT?   You need to think harder on it.

Goose, read that post carefully. I'm going to ignore for now the fact that you are getting mad at someone for painting the other side of the political aisle with a broad brush, and take this opportunity to point out that you just lumped yourself in with Republicans. He didn't say conservatives, he said Republican, and then you said "ours."

The truth will set you free, Goose.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Goose, read that post carefully. I'm going to ignore for now the fact that you are getting mad at someone for painting the other side of the political aisle with a broad brush, and take this opportunity to point out that you just lumped yourself in with Republicans. He didn't say conservatives, he said Republican, and then you said "ours."

The truth will set you free, Goose.

I'm lumped in with everything evil and awful. So fuck the labels.

It seems to me that many in here justify abortion because they've convinced themselves that Rs won't support the kids if born. They somehow remove themselves from the equation altogether. I guess it helps them sleep.

Cameron wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but whether or not Republicans feel the need to provide a social safety net for children who are born to parents who don't want them has no bearing on my thoughts about whether or not abortion should be legal. My position on the matter, to be clear, is that I believe abortion should be legal and readily available up to the point of viability (and I'm not well-informed enough to know exactly when that is, but I think sometime during the second trimester jives with something I vaguely remember hearing once). I also think that contraception and sex education should be free and widely available so as to obviate the need for abortions to the maximum extent possible.

I do, however, see a bit of hypocrisy in forcing women to bear children they don't want and know they can't support, and then working against the government helping to support said women/children. It's all well and good to preach personal accountability, but we still do need to respond as a society to problems arising out of a lack of personal responsibility, and we always will.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but whether or not Republicans feel the need to provide a social safety net for children who are born to parents who don't want them has no bearing on my thoughts about whether or not abortion should be legal. My position on the matter, to be clear, is that I believe abortion should be legal and readily available up to the point of viability (and I'm not well-informed enough to know exactly when that is, but I think sometime during the second trimester jives with something I vaguely remember hearing once). I also think that contraception and sex education should be free and widely available so as to obviate the need for abortions to the maximum extent possible.

I do, however, see a bit of hypocrisy in forcing women to bear children they don't want and know they can't support, and then working against the government helping to support said women/children. It's all well and good to preach personal accountability, but we still do need to respond as a society to problems arising out of a lack of personal responsibility, and we always will.

Viability is between 20-24 weeks depending on who's arguing. Fetal heartbeat is usually detectable between 6-8 weeks.

Can you provide me with examples of Reps/Cons working against programs to support such women? Lots of people say that as a KNOWNFACT™, I'd like to see it backed up.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Viability is between 20-24 weeks depending on who's arguing. Fetal heartbeat is usually detectable between 6-8 weeks.

Can you provide me with examples of Reps/Cons working against programs to support such women? Lots of people say that as a KNOWNFACT™, I'd like to see it backed up.

Well, I'm referring to things like welfare and food stamps. I'm not going to bother finding a link/example for you, if you can't agree that, as a general proposition, people who vote Republican tend to oppose those two programs (among others) or at least would like to see them decrease in size/scope, then I'm not going to try to change your mind about it.

At the close of 2014 approximately 12,000 individuals were enrolled in the state assistance program. Keep in mind that these individuals are adults who aren’t disabled and who don’t have children at home and who are claiming the food-stamp benefits because of a lack of financial resources.

After forcing these individuals to either work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the numbers showed a significant drop from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500.

These individuals who were benefiting from the food-stamp law and who now can’t are able-bodied, capable adults. These aren’t people with physical or mental disabilities or raising growing children. These are regular Joes who don’t seem to want to get a job.

Full statement on attorney general firing

President Trump, at 9:16 p.m. Monday, announced the firing of the acting attorney general who had defied him on his migrant-travel ban, saying she "has betrayed the Department of Justice."

Here is the text, emailed to reporters:

Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

"I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected," said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Well, I'm referring to things like welfare and food stamps. I'm not going to bother finding a link/example for you, if you can't agree that, as a general proposition, people who vote Republican tend to oppose those two programs (among others) or at least would like to see them decrease in size/scope, then I'm not going to try to change your mind about it.

So it remains a "knownfact", with no verification because everyone "knows" that.

I call bullshit. WIC would be more specifically the program for mothers of young children. If R's/Cons oppose fraud in those programs that is NOT the equivalent of opposing the programs. And prior to the screeching of "no fraud" from my liberal friends did you see what happened in Maine??

Maybe you support food stamps for able bodied adults with no children that refuse to work, go to school or volunteer? Most people don't.

At the close of 2014 approximately 12,000 individuals were enrolled in the state assistance program. Keep in mind that these individuals are adults who aren’t disabled and who don’t have children at home and who are claiming the food-stamp benefits because of a lack of financial resources.

After forcing these individuals to either work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the numbers showed a significant drop from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500.

These individuals who were benefiting from the food-stamp law and who now can’t are able-bodied, capable adults. These aren’t people with physical or mental disabilities or raising growing children. These are regular Joes who don’t seem to want to get a job.

This Is What Happened When Maine Forced Welfare Recipients To Work For Their Benefits


And then there's the fraud - and why Maine? Because they've been the State most active in rooting this stuff out.
Feds Probe Massive Food Stamp Fraud in Maine

Opposing that kind of shit is NOT opposing food stamps, WIC and other programs for mothers with children - no matter how many times Dems say it is.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So it remains a "knownfact", with no verification because everyone "knows" that.

I call bullshit. WIC would be more specifically the program for mothers of young children. If R's/Cons oppose fraud in those programs that is NOT the equivalent of opposing the programs. And prior to the screeching of "no fraud" from my liberal friends did you see what happened in Maine??

Maybe you support food stamps for able bodied adults with no children that refuse to work, go to school or volunteer? Most people don't.




This Is What Happened When Maine Forced Welfare Recipients To Work For Their Benefits


And then there's the fraud - and why Maine? Because they've been the State most active in rooting this stuff out.
Feds Probe Massive Food Stamp Fraud in Maine

Opposing that kind of shit is NOT opposing food stamps, WIC and other programs for mothers with children - no matter how many times Dems say it is.

As I said, I'm not going to try to change your mind about it.

LooseGoose wrote:This sums it up pretty well.

Melissa Mackenzie  ‏@MelissaTweets  7m7 minutes ago
Your job is to enforce laws as AG--not decide which laws to enforce.

You are not above the law.

You are not the law.

LooseGoose wrote:And we all know Bernstein and Dershowitz are in the tank for Trump. Right?

Heather Hunter ‏@heatherhunterdc 14m14 minutes ago
More
Alan Dershowitz on CNN: Sally Yates Made A Serious Mistake.

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose is an abortion zealot. Its just what he is.

We have seen argue for the rights of the unborn.
Then lecture about personal responsibility as a reason we don't need additional funding to support those children who are born to mother's who choose to raise the children and might need government support are told there is none available.

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose is an abortion zealot. Its just what he is.

We have seen argue for the rights of the unborn.
Then lecture about personal responsibility as a reason we don't need additional funding to support those children who are born to mother's who choose to raise the children and might need government support are told there is none available.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Meanwhile, Trudeau is owning Trump.

Justin Trudeau ‏@JustinTrudeau  3h3 hours ago
#WelcomeToCanada


Justin Trudeau ‏@JustinTrudeau 3h3 hours ago
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
7,627 replies 126,525 retweets 191,596 likes

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose is an abortion zealot. Its just what he is.

We have seen argue for the rights of the unborn.
Then lecture about personal responsibility as a reason we don't need additional funding to support those children who are born to mother's who choose to raise the children and might need government support are told there is none available.

Show me ONE lecture about this. From me. You can't. You're straight up making it up

LooseGoose wrote:Good - he has the right to fire them and move on.  She had a right to defy him, she exercised it  and now she can join her unemployed Obama administration cohorts.

xsanguine wrote:Isn't it a bit early to call it a failure? People are mad about it, but people are going to be mad about everything this guy does whether it's wrong or right.

If an ISIS fighter from one of these banned countries enters via Mexico and bombs a club in San Antone then we can start the failure talk.

Dendrobates wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Isn't it a bit early to call it a failure? People are mad about it, but people are going to be mad about everything this guy does whether it's wrong or right.

If an ISIS fighter from one of these banned countries enters via Mexico and bombs a club in San Antone then we can start the failure talk.

But that's also why his order doesn't make sense. None of the ISIS fighters came from those banned countries, but from the countries he gave a pass on. Because he doesn't business with them. It's all a part of his personal agenda which is why it's such bullshit and completely unconstitutional.

Cym Jim wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:Meanwhile, Trudeau is owning Trump.

Justin Trudeau ‏@JustinTrudeau  3h3 hours ago
#WelcomeToCanada


Justin Trudeau ‏@JustinTrudeau 3h3 hours ago
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
7,627 replies 126,525 retweets 191,596 likes

Don't know how many of you travel internationally, but during the line to get through immigration (US citizen or not) in most large airports there was a video playing on several TVs with Obama describing the virtues and values of America, how the people were the most welcoming in the world, and various other positive, welcoming messages. I always found it so powerful and uplifting stood in that line among people from around the world, and it reminded US citizens who they were and what they stood for. Needless to say it disappeared during the transition. I can't imagine what cowardly shit it's been replaced with now.

Cym Jim wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:Meanwhile, Trudeau is owning Trump.

Justin Trudeau ‏@JustinTrudeau  3h3 hours ago
#WelcomeToCanada


Justin Trudeau ‏@JustinTrudeau 3h3 hours ago
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
7,627 replies 126,525 retweets 191,596 likes

Don't know how many of you travel internationally, but during the line to get through immigration (US citizen or not) in most large airports there was a video playing on several TVs with Obama describing the virtues and values of America, how the people were the most welcoming in the world, and various other positive, welcoming messages. I always found it so powerful and uplifting stood in that line among people from around the world, and it reminded US citizens who they were and what they stood for. Needless to say it disappeared during the transition. I can't imagine what cowardly shit it's been replaced with now.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Show me ONE lecture about this. From me. You can't. You're straight up making it up

So goose, should we have additional funding for mothers who choose to have the baby to help them raise the child?

I.B. Fine wrote:

Dendrobates wrote:

But that's also why his order doesn't make sense. None of the ISIS fighters came from those banned countries, but from the countries he gave a pass on. Because he doesn't business with them. It's all a part of his personal agenda which is why it's such bullshit and completely unconstitutional.

While I don't totally disagree, Trump's list of the 7 terrorist countries came from the Obama administration.