... when Piers Morgan, on "Good Morning Britain," said that London's mayor Sadiq Khan has been "quite critical of you" and "attacked you for being ignorant."
Trump also said "When he won, I wished him well. Now I don’t care about him," and "I just think it’s very rude of him." And: "I'm not stupid OK? I can tell you that right now," and "I don't think I'm a divisive person, I'm a unifier."
June 6, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
216 comments:
1 – 200 of 216 Newer› Newest»A year ago.
And where's the outrage at Khan and Cameron "interfering" in the election?
If there was an IQ test to vote, we might never have gotten Trump, mainly because we never would have gotten Hillary as the alternative.
I hope Ann does a post on the numerous friends of Inga, ARM and the gang who have in the last 24 hours: 1) attacked cops outside Notre Dame cathedral in Paris; 2) Attacked people in Toronto with a golf club while wearing an ISIS bandana and shouting "Allah Akbar!" and 3) attacked and killed someone in Australia. That guy had been released because of liberal wailing about "being mean to Muslims" as far as I know.
Inga said yesterday that all of these people have a constitutional right to come to the United States and that no Muslim anywhere can be forbidden.
I'd love for Ann to make a post talking about what the Federal Government did to the Mormons and how all of it was held constitutional. Just so people like Inga can see how far the 1st Amendment goes in forcing us to slit our own throats.
--Vance
Newsflash!
The mayor of London decides to protest Trump's travel ban by banning Trump from traveling to London.....update to follow
Gahrie: Trump should offer to send someone the Mayor of London would prefer: Some known Jihadi lunatic from Guantanamo. Say that clearly the Mayor prefers the murderous Jihadi types instead.
Or maybe some antifa.
--Vance
Trump's ignorance of the difference between ignorance and lack of intelligence doesn't give us a lot of confidence in his knowledge or his intelligence.
The Brits and their Muslim BFFs from Pakistan throw around a stupid accusation at the infidel American President because he is refusing to grovel before allah. In their book, that is a stupid move to make, because they expect to win your submission to them by the terrorists sword.
In the Book of Trump, the silly groveling to allah 5 times a day is what is stupid. Do it if you want, but stop teaching allah demands Muslims kill infidels. If you keep doing that, your defeat by the USA is certain.
Trump is such an embarrassment to the United States. Thanks a lot Hillbillies for electing him. Way to set our country back fifty years.
rTump's ignorance of the difference between ignorance and lack of intelligence doesn't give us a lot of confidence in his knowledge or his intelligence.
Hard to believe he was the best choice we had, but there it is. Hilary's ignorance of common decency ("We came! We saw! He died! Chortle guffaw) was just one disqualifier.
The website http://gatesofvienna.net/ has an interesting take on terror taking place around the world.
Thanks a lot Hillbillies for electing him. Way to set our country back fifty years.
Thanks for doubling down on the most unacceptable candidate to half the country and forcing the choice Once!
So... the mayor of London want's to ban President Donald Trump, but violent, murderous Jihadi's, not so much... Glad to know what this ass-hat's priorities are...
Averge IQ in the US is 98, in Pakistan 84. If you're betting on Trump, you'll have to give points.
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
I guess his attention was distracted from his bans on subway and bus ads that showed too much skin. This in the UK were I once saw an ad for Starburst candy that said "Starburst really gets your juices flowing" and showed a female tennis player from behind in a short skirt, bent over to reveal a certain wetness. UnIslamic, doncha know!
Let me tell you something else, Pierced Organ, he's also a WINNER.
Besides, it's former Democrats drummed out of the party by the White Left that undermined the "blue wall" and elected Trump.
Once written, twice... said...
Trump is such an embarrassment to the United States. Thanks a lot Hillbillies for electing him. Way to set our country back fifty years.
6/6/17, 12:38 PM
YOUR welCome !
Trump's ignorance of the difference between ignorance and lack of intelligence doesn't give us a lot of confidence in his knowledge or his intelligence.
That's cultural. Properly formed IQ tests measure it and compensate for it.
If you get that question wrong, your IQ comes out a little higher.
Lessee: 50 years ago. 1967. The US put a man on the moon 2 years later. Granted, 67 was not as good as Eisenhower's time, but the US was pretty well regarded back then (except of course screaming leftists who were so terribly upset that US Troops were killing commies).
So not much was different: leftists still hated America; still loved commies and supported anyone who would kill an American. See Fonda, Jane. I'm sure you would have fit right in, Once. Maybe you'd be spitting on a veteran, too, just to show how tolerant and enlightened you are.
--Vance
How has the intellectual approach to dealing with terrorism been working?
The word Trump is looking for is "attention whore"
He's not divisive, I agree, he only has a personality disorder.
The real problem is that Tillerson can't get him to shut the f'k up.
So I suspect he won't be long for the cause. Sooner or later he's going to want to work with adults and shun the psychosis that defines his boss.
Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, knowledge, power of discerning; art, skill, taste,"
-- intelligence
lack of wisdom or knowledge
-- ignorance
"YOUR welCome !" (sic)
You mean:
You're welcome.
50 years ago, the US was emptying the insane asylums and the prisons, preparing the ground for the crime wave of 68--96. One data point: March 21, 1967 Charles Manson was released, just in time for the Summer of Love in SF, where he began assembling his "family."
If you get that question wrong, your IQ comes out a little higher.
LOL!
Piers vs. Omarosa.
Was America great 50 years ago? Asking for a friend.
Here's a good question for an IQ test? "Why am I not 50 points ahead!?!"
Who can argue Trump hasn't unified, in one respect, almost the entire world?
More evidence Trump is a racist, IQ tests are racist.
Rob wrote: Trump's ignorance of the difference between ignorance and lack of intelligence doesn't give us a lot of confidence in his knowledge or his intelligence.
There is ignorance and willful ignorance, or didn't you know that, Rob?
Donald Trump is not an idiot, nor are the people that voted for him.
Contrast that with the people of London, who are burying their kids, and wondering why they died so violently and needlessly - and making excuses for the idiot mayor they elected. The lesson here, as it was with the previous US presidential administration - is that if you elect third world morons to positions of power, you are going to have third world problems.
I have no sympathy left for the UK. They won't even protect their children because they are afraid stupid people will call them 'racists'. Donald Trump is looking pretty good these days, and he looks better as Europe continues to reap the whirlwind.
Sadiq Khan, a brown-skinned left-leaning Laborite, dismissed terrorism as just another inconvenience of life in a great city, and therefore nothing much to worry about.
Now, in place of Khan and Islamic terrorism, substitute a white conservative who says air pollution is just another inconvenience of life in a great city, and then stand back as the howling mob of progressives storm the ramparts in search of his head on a pike.
Once written whines: Trump is such an embarrassment to the United States. Thanks a lot Hillbillies for electing him. Way to set our country back fifty years.
Maybe you should just move your embarrassed little ass to Canada.
Typo alert: Labourite (damnèd auto-correct)
"Contrast that with the people of London, who are burying their kids, and wondering why they died so violently and needlessly - and making excuses for the idiot mayor they elected."
This happened at that same time as the last London attack:
TORONTO - A Toronto woman has been charged after a suspect masked with an ISIS bandana allegedly swung a golf club at store employees while screaming threats and Islamic chants on Saturday afternoon at the same time that a terrorist rampage occurred in London."
Hammers appear to be the Weapon du Jour:
PARIS, June 6 (Reuters) - A man armed with a hammer shouted "this is for Syria" before attacking police officers on Tuesday outside France's Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, the interior minister said.
The assailant wounded one officer before he was shot and wounded by other officers. The Paris prosecutor's office swiftly began a counter-terrorism investigation."
Although it's not clear what weapon this innocent refugee used:
"Australian police say they are treating a siege in Melbourne, Australia on Monday as a terrorist incident but are confident the perpetrator acted alone.
Twenty-nine-year-old Somali-born Australian Yacub Khayre was shot and killed by police after he killed a man and took a woman hostage in an apartment block. Three police officers were injured during the standoff.
Khayre had booked a prostitute to meet him at an address in the south of the city on Monday afternoon local time. But when the 36-year-old Colombian woman arrived, Khayre killed the building’s concierge, a 36-year-old Chinese-Australian man, and took her hostage. It’s alleged he then called the offices of NBC’s Australian partners Channel 7 and told an employee “This is for IS [Islamic State], this is for Al Qaeda.”
Yet liberals clamor to let more security risks into the country because We Must Have Diversity.
We're certainly getting diversity when it comes to methods of attack. They might hit you with a hammer, or stab you, or shoot you, or bomb you, or run you over with a semi.
But Trump's the stupid one.
Maybe you should just move your embarrassed little ass to Canada.
6/6/17, 1:29 PM
Just watch out for hammer attacks.
Although hitting Once over the head with a hammer would do no harm. It's not like his head holds anything valuable.
Quaestor said...
Sadiq Khan, a brown-skinned left-leaning Laborite, dismissed terrorism as just another inconvenience of life in a great city, and therefore nothing much to worry about."
Which is basically telling the little people of London that their lives are expendable.
What sort self-loathing jackasses vote for a man who tells them that their deaths and the deaths of their loved ones would be no big whoop?
Vance the Unknown: I hope Ann does a post on the numerous friends of Inga, ARM and the gang who have in the last 24 hours: 1) attacked cops outside Notre Dame cathedral in Paris; 2) Attacked people in Toronto with a golf club while wearing an ISIS bandana and shouting "Allah Akbar!" and 3) attacked and killed someone in Australia.
When these things start piling up I notice a shift in lefty commentary from complaining, among other things, about Trump's bumptious speech allegedly alienating the world, to talking about nothing but Trump's bumptious speech allegedly alienating the world. IOW, the function of the complaints expands for deflection duty - pay no attention to the bloodshed itself, let's talk about how embarrassing and awful, awful, awful Trump is. And embarrassing. And awful.
You see, it isn't decades' worth of imprudence and incompetence on the part of the "sophisticated", well-credentialed leaders, pushing "enlightened", "progressive" policies that has brought us to where we are. It's the ignorant Trump who fucked up everything, and who is now interfering with the necessary, and sure to work, "staying calm and letting the sophisticated and well-credentialed carry on with exactly the same policies as before" program. (How embarrassing. How awful.)
Would Khan be mayor if he wasn't Muslim?
The world hates us, so what? They've hated us from day 1 with a very few exceptions. Why ruin the track record?
But they love and lust after our wealth.
We surpassed the vaunted European living standards around 1900.
They bitch, they've always bitched or sniffed, and they're happy that way.
"Hard to believe he was the best choice we had, but there it is. Hilary's ignorance of common decency ("We came! We saw! He died! Chortle guffaw) was just one disqualifier."
He wasn't a prize in your cereal box. There were more than a dozen other Republicans to select from, and yet here we are.
People are being murdered by terrorists in the street and at pop concerts but the Mayor of London is concerned that people might be alarmed by the sight of armed police? That sounds weird to me.
Either he thinks the people don't mind all the murders but the sight of police is unnerving or he's concerned that the people are so completely traumatized that the sight of police will be another source of trauma? Or perhaps he's trying to reassure people that terrorist attacks are nothing to be alarmed about, statistically speaking, it's all just part of normal modern life. That all sounds stupid to me; I'd be reassured by the sight of armed police after terrorist attacks and not reassured by government officials telling me to get used to terrorism. I'd rather not nitpick about President Trump's IQ and whether he's "ignorant" about something Mayor Khan is knowledgeable about, i.e., that jihad is now part of the UK and European experience so get used to it.
I just talked to someone who recently returned from a trip to Europe. She said it was strange seeing all the armed soldiers in the streets in Paris but after a while she got used to it. Part of the new normal of multicultural society where you have to accept an "increase in criminality" as Angela Merkel put it.
Trump hacked the voting machines with Poot as his guide. You know he's smartz.
Armed police would make me feel safer.
The mayor is an Islamic a-hole.
I got a kick out of the gag on the "IMAO" blog: a photo of London's mayor, with the tag line, "Just another Taqquiya Sunrise."
Perhaps one of the reasons Europe is in this pickle is competition. Perhaps the big boys were competing with US thinking they could build a better society.
Another reason they may be in this situation is because they still haven't recovered mentally from the scars of WWI.
I'm definitely going to see Dunkirk.
It's coming!
It's coming!
It's finally coming!
=
The necessary discussion whether Islam is compatible with the values of the West from its birth in the Enlightenment.
OWT wrote: "Trump is such an embarrassment to the United States. Thanks a lot Hillbillies for electing him."
You are welcome my dear. Note that we are SMART hillbillies on this site. Many if not most have advanced degrees and are likely much smarter than Ms. Clinton.
It's interesting how the left believes that conservatives are conservative because they are dumb and liberals are leftists because they are smart. Objective data (Armed services IQ testing and college grades) suggest who was smarter: Bush, Gore or Kerry?
Answer: Bush had slightly higher IQ scores and grades, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Oh, by the way, Hillary failed the DC bar exam. What percentage of people from elite schools fail that exam? Look it up.
Robert Cook said...
"YOUR welCome !" (sic)
You mean:
You're welcome.
6/6/17, 1:05 PM
Well, that wus easy!
What's always been interesting about accepting the increase of criminality is...
Take NYC for example.
Times Square and Rudy. When he started cleaning it up, the Lamentations after a few years that it lost some of its character since it wasn't gritty anymore. Which is really ironic since .... Maybe someone should just buy an island and turn it into GritWorld. They can get their fix on vacay.
I am a citizen, not a subject. I have the in/unalienable right to be secure in my person. I do not have to accept being prey while the elite live behind their walls. This is what they think of us as, expendable.
THAT is a difference and part of the reason why they hate US.
Efn olde world mentality.
Don't forget, Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States and it's illegal to keep them out according to Inga and the rest. Every Muslim in the world can come here!
The Establishment clause of the US Constitution only works to protect Muslims, don't you know. Anyone else wanting to use it is out of luck (See the Mormons, whom the US government stripped the right to vote and the Supreme Court upheld 9-0). But passing a law asking for a Muslim to be vetted before becoming a refugee is the worst thing possible! The Mormons had their church legally dissolved and all their assets seized by the Federal government; again all constitutional. Inga and ARM and Brookzene loudly applaud that action. The Feds sent agents spying on Mormon church services and literally hunting people--perfectly fine!
The mere suggestion of listening in on Mosque's is the vilest form of bigotry imaginable. Right?
What were the Mormons doing? Trying to turn a desert into a place to live. Clearly a deep threat to the State. Muslims merely murder magnificently, without qualm or hesitancy. Those who do not murder seem to condone others doing it for them. But no, we cannot do anything at all to protect ourselves because the Constitution forbids it!
Why do foreign Muslims get more Constitutional rights than US Citizen Mormons? Never heard a leftist try to answer that one. Never heard a one that criticized the Mormon persecutions in the late 1800's either as unconstitutional. But even thinking a bad thought about Islam is unconstitutional.
--Vance
Lefties/vile Progs are so smart, but they still can't connect the almost 100 y.o. dots on trying to make socialism work and the killing fields that happen.
Hunger Games. In a nutshell.
Or should I say building socialist Utopias with the Perfectability of Man?
Redneck deplorable suits me just fine.
If it were up to me the only people who would immigrate to the US would be atheists, who are sympathetic with the ideas of the Enlightenment, are good at math, can work with their hands and favor universal health care. If it were up to me. Unfortunately the vast majority of those people prefer to live in countries other than the US. So, we are largely left with immigrants from shitty countries, each shitty in its own unique way.
People from Islamic countries cause a lot of problems, but so do the immigrants from all the other shitty countries, just in different ways. Once we start banning people from one set of shitty countries what criteria do we use to include or exclude all the other shitty countries in this ban? The right is very keen to ban people but has not produced a clear set of criteria for distinguishing the banned from the non-banned.
@ ARM
If they are good at math they necessarily cannot favor universal health care.
Try again?
"If it were up to me the only people who would immigrate to the US would be atheists"
The atheists of Europe are busy committing cultural suicide right now. They don't strike me as especially bright.
Neither do you.
Birkel said...
If they are good at math they necessarily cannot favor universal health care.
And yet it moves.
There were standards and perhaps those should be revisited?
Now with blood tests and making sure the immigrant has all immunizations.
To protect said immigrant from the fallout of virtue-signaling idiot parents of children.
And will fail due to The lack of OPM.
What sort self-loathing jackasses vote for a man who tells them that their deaths and the deaths of their loved ones would be no big whoop?
Any kind. Self-loathing has been the foundation of progressivism since the 1950s. In America, white self-hatred fixates on racism, which progressives define as virtually genetic — Got that Anglo-Saxon genome? Then you're a racist. In Britain it fixates on imperialism which they define as virtually genetic — Got that Anglo-Saxon genome? Then you're an imperialist exploiter (and a racist, btw). Got those Pakistani genes? Then you're a victim of imperialism and racism.
Many people, black and white, voted for Obama for racial reasons — He's black, there he should be President. They totally ignored whether he was qualified. On the merits, he was not. In no area was Barack Obama an outstanding candidate — not in the law, not in government, and certainly not in the world of business. In fact, if it weren't for his African father, a choice between Hillary and Obama would best be determined by a coin flip. Proglodytes in London, the kind who love to watch Harold Pinter plays, voted for Khan for the same reason.
Perhaps ARM is thinking of Chinese atheists:
"It is said to be China's biggest church and on Easter Sunday thousands of worshippers will flock to this Asian mega-temple to pledge their allegiance – not to the Communist Party, but to the Cross.
The 5,000-capacity Liushi church, which boasts more than twice as many seats as Westminster Abbey and a 206ft crucifix that can be seen for miles around, opened last year with one theologian declaring it a "miracle that such a small town was able to build such a grand church".
The £8 million building is also one of the most visible symbols of Communist China's breakneck conversion as it evolves into one of the largest Christian congregations on earth.
By 2030, China's total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.
"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."
Well, that must give ARM a sad.
" From Yunnan province in China's balmy southwest to Liaoning in its industrial northeast, congregations are booming and more Chinese are thought to attend Sunday services each week than do Christians across the whole of Europe.
A recent study found that online searches for the words "Christian Congregation" and "Jesus" far outnumbered those for "The Communist Party" and "Xi Jinping", China's president.
Among China's Protestants are also many millions who worship at illegal underground "house churches", which hold unsupervised services – often in people's homes – in an attempt to evade the prying eyes of the Communist Party.
Such churches are mostly behind China's embryonic missionary movement – a reversal of roles after the country was for centuries the target of foreign missionaries. Now it is starting to send its own missionaries abroad, notably into North Korea, in search of souls. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
"Maybe you should just move your embarrassed little ass to Canada."
LMAO, Once written claims (s)he lives in Argentina. But surely (s)he posts in good faith. Of course. No doubt.
The Eastern Europeans were forced to give up their religions. They won't give them up so easily, either.
OTOH, perhaps ARM should peruse the Canadian wait times for surgeries. I believe each province posts them. Or read why Chiello? Had to file suit that went all the way to their Supreme Court.
Or watch British tv shows with real Brits, look at their ages ad their teeth and ponder what over 50 years of universal dental care has wrought.
The Great British Bake-off might be a good start.
but it wouldn't matter since the "right" people weren't in charge and it'll work this time!
William Chadwick shares: "Just another Taqquiya Sunrise."
Excellent!
Of course, it was just completely coincidental that the Enlightenment took place in Christian Europe. It rose in a vacuum and could have just as easily happened in Africa, or India.
Nobody in Europe knew how to do math up until then. It's rather a wonder that they managed to build Europe's great Cathedrals when, due to Christianity, they could barely count.
Because God hates numbers or something.
"No one likes us.
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect.
But heaven knows we try.
Yet all around,
even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one,
and see what happens."
Randy Newman
In a way Mayor Khan is being a realist; but that is only in a reality where Muslim citizens are soldiers for allah that need more time for setting up a take over and god ordered extermination of dirty dog infidels.
For that purpose, Khan needs the infidels to stay sleeping in stupidity and blindness. He is angry at Trump copying Winston Churchill and awakening the politically correct paralysis of the stupid British before their time to die has arrived.
@ ARM
Which do you think is not true:
1) There are unlimited wants and need; or
2) There are limited resources; or
3) Magic is real.
Feel free to choose more than one.
@ Birkel
Why would you think "universal health care" = "[full satisfaction of] unlimited wants and need"? No serious thinker in the debate thinks that.
I'm fine with people dismissing other positions. But we should be careful with matches around here--this place is populated with strawmen.
I don't know if Trump is dumb it just that he watches Fox News which edited the Mayor's statement and Trump, who doesn't like to read, went with that truncated quote.Although why he, or us, has to make his IQ an issue just marks his insecurity. I think a more informed discussion of Muslims in America has to consider when Muslims immigrated here and under what circumstances. For example many of those who settled in the Detroit area left the Middle East because they wanted to get out of a repressive country, like Iran or Pakistan, and were attracted to our freedoms and democracy. Other more recent immigrants may not be attracted to our culture as much as being displaced by their own. As a result the generation or so that it takes to assimilate into a culture can produce the dissatisfied and alienated sons like Rahami in the US or Salman Abedi in the UK who twist their anger together with that part of Islam which is intolerant of the Kafir whether it be Sufis or Christians into a justified ISSiS linked terrorism. Given our promise of arms to the Saudis, and our continue involvement is the long wars, I suspect the Middle East will be embroiled in more sectarian violence for the next decade. The best we can do is to continue a thorough vetting process for ALL incoming immigrants, as we have been doing, and encourage if you see something say something. Ironically the fact that we have many more workplace shootings than terror attacks show that our vetting process is working and should be increased.
Craig: Because that's what the left argues it is? Universal Health Care is utopia: free, everything covered, care from the best doctors, no lines or rationing, and it comes with a side of unicorns and rainbows!. Only bigots and haters and people who want to push Grandma off a cliff could possibly oppose it! They probably want to eat Grandma too!
Since that is what the left presents it as, it is fair to criticize it. After all, just because Obama likes to eat dog doesn't mean the rest of us need to consume Dogs* as peddled by leftists.
--Vance
Re State-supplied health care: Need=right. Totally rational. No dogma or superstition there.
The President doth protest too much, methinks.
AReasonableMan: "If it were up to me the only people who would immigrate to the US would be atheists, who are sympathetic with the ideas of the Enlightenment, are good at math, can work with their hands and favor universal health care."
Atheists did a really good job constructing all those mass graves over the last 100 years.
And filling them.
Stephen: "The President doth protest too much, methinks."
Yes he does.
Now, how would you characterize his opponents?
RV wrote:
“encourage if you see something say something”
A women tried to say something in Manchester. She was accused of racism. Then the bomb went off.
Neighbors of the terrorists in San Bern saw some suspicious activity, but didn’t say anything – because leftists like you have made them afraid to speak up.
If people speak up every time they “see something” on some of those occasions they will be wrong. Then the aggrieved “victim” will run to CAIR and the media to talk about how Islamophobic Americans are.
The IQ test between Trump and Kahn has one question:
Muslims want to kill us. True or false?
Via Insty:
...So who is Acting Ambassador Lewis Lukens, anyway?
Turns out he's a career diplomat, with nearly 30 years' experience in assorted outposts. His most prominent positions, however, have been at the side of the person who must have served as a sort of mentor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, serving as her chief administrative officer. In that time frame, he managed to reach the inner circle of Clinton's tight little circle of acolytes – on the same level as Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.
In testimony to Congress, Lukens claimed to have come up with the idea of having Clinton set up a private server:
Q: And so what did you – did you propose a solution at that point?
A: So my proposal was to set up a computer on her desk, a standalone computer [not part of the State Department's system], for her to be able to access the internet to check her e-mails [privatized — and therefore not subject to FOIA requests or historians' investigations].
For what it's worth, Sundance at Conservative Treehouse points out that a mysterious fire that destroyed documents related to Clinton's illegal email server occurred at the State Department on administrative officer Lukens's watch, too.
Given his administrative role, it is possible he was involved in turning down Ambassador Chris Stevens of Libya as Stevens futilely sought additional embassy protective staff, although he seems to have moved on before the envoy was killed in 2012. One thing is for certain: Lukens has always been onboard with Hillary Clinton.
Here's the next peculiarity:
Clinton seems to have a relationship to Khan, whom Lukens went so far out of his way to defend on Twitter. According to a report from the London bureau of the Voice of America:
The London mayor said he is "a big fan" of Democrat Hillary Clinton, and called her "arguably the most experienced candidate to run to be president."
He went on to say, "As the father of two daughters, I think the message it sends when the most powerful politician in the world is a woman is phenomenal, and hope she wins."
He wasn't shy about wanting to help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election, either:
London's new mayor Sadiq Khan Wednesday promised to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump in November's presidential election – insisting the race for the White House was now "personal."
Khan, the first Muslim leader of any major Western capital, said Clinton should use his mayoral campaign as a "template" because he had seen off a "Donald Trump approach" to elections in the U.K.
Now Lukens, Clinton's private server enabler and close inner circle member, is returning the favor to Khan from the U.S. embassy walls, through his Trump-contradicting tweets. Sure, it might be coordinated. But given the history, and Trump's latest tweets about not getting his envoys confirmed, it's more likely it's not.
Any question as to what the face of the Deep State looks like? What is this guy doing in the U.S. embassy in London, and who put him there?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/rogue_envoy_why_is_hillary_clintons_private_server_man_running_the_us_embassy_in_uk_and_undercutting_trumps_tweets.html#ixzz4jFzyrEN2
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
I did not make anyone afraid to speak up and I have spoken up when I saw what I thought to be suspicious action by a veiled women in the Amsterdam air port. And actually a fellow Muslim did speak up and warn the authorities about the Manchester bomber, but intelligence, another failure, did not see Abedi as a high treat. So please lower your generalizations.
Looks like the Democrats in the Senate are trying to gently let the air out of the Comey expectations balloon.
It is actually pretty remarkable to me how many people were insane enough to ever believe that Comey was going to perjure himself on Thursday or admit he perjured himself last month and was, thus, complicit in obstruction of justice.
@ Vance/Unknown
Link to one prominent person advocating for universal health at "utopia: free, everything covered, care from the best doctors, no lines or rationing, and it comes with a side of unicorns and rainbows." Since you claim that the left presents things that way, this should be easy.
Alternatively: give up on this strawmanning, and deal with the actual arguments.
So presidential. "Let's do an IQ test!" It's not even "adult" let alone presidential.
Roesch/Voltaire is mostly correct about US Muslims.
The US does not, yet, have a major Muslim problem.
Yet.
And let us leave out the Shiites and such minorities as Ahmadis. They aren't a problem. It is the Sunnis of all flavors you need to worry about.
The real problem is the size of the community. All of them together, in sufficient numbers, will create a self-isolated community that will preserve the critical elements of their cultural norms, and therefore will always create aggressive, antagonistic movements against you.
To answer ARM,
You have enough numbers and variety of immigrant groups in the US to accurately predict group behaviour, and derive cost/benefit ratios. Some decent data gathering and genuine analysis would easily give you a table of factors such as multi-generational social mobility, crime rates, human resource value, etc. From this it should be possible to select optimum immigrant provider countries.
Europe would have saved itself no end of trouble if it had taken such simple steps to be more selective in the origin and nature of the populations it imported. France, for instance, would have had far better results if it had preferred Vietnamese and Viet-Chinese to its North African immigrants. Germany could have opened an immigration office in Manila and obtained an immensely more compatible lot than its Middle Eastern refugees.
Brookzene: "So presidential."
Cigars, Interns Not Included.
Craig: "Alternatively: give up on this strawmanning, and deal with the actual arguments."
Yes, lets start with how republicans want everyone to die. That should keep us from veering into strawman land......oh.
Brookzene: "So presidential."
Drago replies: "Cigars, Interns Not Included."
I add: What about a private server for income?
"Sadiq Khan, a brown-skinned left-leaning Laborite, dismissed terrorism as just another inconvenience of life in a great city, and therefore nothing much to worry about."
Sorry, why don't you just say "I am a racist."
The left will do anything to avoid paying for their own health care.
The tax payer must be raped for the precious single payer.
Hey,
AReasonableMan said...
If it were up to me the only people who would immigrate to the US would be atheists, who are sympathetic with the ideas of the Enlightenment, are good at math, can work with their hands and favor universal health care. If it were up to me. Unfortunately the vast majority of those people prefer to live in countries other than the US. So, we are largely left with immigrants from shitty countries, each shitty in its own unique way.
People from Islamic countries cause a lot of problems, but so do the immigrants from all the other shitty countries, just in different ways. Once we start banning people from one set of shitty countries what criteria do we use to include or exclude all the other shitty countries in this ban? The right is very keen to ban people but has not produced a clear set of criteria for distinguishing the banned from the non-banned.
6/6/17, 2:15 PM
I'm thinking, Arm wants white people!
Is that allowed?
So you can say "white skin" but nobody can say "brown skin."
Get with the PC rules, people - or some brain dead leftist will call you a "racist."
and it's a really well thought-out insult. Nothing is worse.
"Cigars, Interns Not Included."
Trump's childishness is on twitter, and he is completely unself-aware. As are many of his groupies.
@Drago
I agree. The left isn't immune from strawmanning either. But I didn't see anyone in this thread saying "republicans want everyone to die". In fact, I don't think I've seen anyone saying that on this blog ever. But feel free to provide a quote or a link, unless this too is a strawman.
buwaya said...
You have enough numbers and variety of immigrant groups in the US to accurately predict group behaviour, and derive cost/benefit ratios.
This is a procedure not a set of criteria. Using this procedure Syria would almost certainly outrank most countries based solely on the staggeringly massive contribution of Steve Jobs to US finances and tech dominance.
From this it should be possible to select optimum immigrant provider countries.
We already know these. People in northwest Europe generally aren't going to move here.
Well, Barack Obama made all those claims for Obamacare. And Democrats claim Single Payer is far, far better than Obamacare.
Remember "You can keep your doctor! You'll save 2000 a year! No more preaapproved conditions! Everything's covered! You can't be denied!"
In short, puppies and unicorns. All lies, of course, but that was what was promised for Obamacare. And now you guys are all saying how much better universal single payer healthcare will be.
--Vance
Does the average Trump voter, give a rat's ass what the Mayor of London thinks.
Elites and wanna be Elites (hi Inga) derive their information from a narrow view and think of THEMSELVES as smart. Just because you, and all your Facebook friends think something means you are as smart as you were when you thought Hillary was going to win.
This Kahn fellow, I don't trust him one bit. He is a snake and a liar. He is shifty. He's a little guy.
I pity England. They gave got a problem in their hands that will last girl generations.
@Unknown/Vance
You should be able to distinguish:
1 - You'll keep your doctor, save $2k, no pre approved conditions, everything's covered, you can't be denied (still: provide a single link. I don't believe you that Obama ever said this.)
2 - Puppies and unicorns
3 - utopia: free, everything covered, care from the best doctors, no lines or rationing, and it comes with a side of unicorns and rainbows
You now seem to be offering three different things it seems you think someone on the Left has asserted; you're just multiplying my skepticism. Can you distinguish these things? And, even as you multiply the possibilities, I call bs: find me one prominent person on the left who has ever asserted these.
"Sadiq Khan, a brown-skinned left-leaning Laborite, dismissed terrorism as just another inconvenience of life in a great city, and therefore nothing much to worry about."
Sorry, why don't you just say "I am a racist."
Yeah, I remember the anti-racism outcry when Kathy Griffen was going on and on about "old, white men".
Not to mention the President with the most mentions of his skin tone was not Obama, but Trump.
Bad Lieutenant said...
Arm wants white people!
None of those criteria are exclusive to white people. Obviously the Enlightenment is a product of western Europe, but the ideas are potentially universal.
@ Craig
I yield. Nobody has ever promised panacea. Except President Obama who promised only good things including no rationing. And all the Congressional Democrats who voted for ObamaCare. And all the Journ-O-Lists who sang in chorus to praise all the promises of only positive outcomes.
Sod off.
Craig: "I don't think I've seen anyone saying that on this blog ever."
TTR, God love him, tends to launch that one at least once a day.
@Brookzene, no sense bitching about Trump. If you wanted better than him you should have told your Dumbocrat friends to put up someone better than Hillary.
ARM: "None of those criteria are exclusive to white people. Obviously the Enlightenment is a product of western Europe, but the ideas are potentially universal."
Hmmmm, where to begin?
You are correct of course. The problem is the left that doesn't accept any of that "ideas are universal" or that ideas generated by the West are "better" than anyone elses any more.
Unfortunately.
@ Birkel
Sod off? That's the best you've got. You can't handle the details of the arguments, you can't handle politics, so you make an exaggeration, you get called on it, and you get annoyed.
@ Vance
Obama promised $2500 savings and not merely $2000.
Craig's Google is broken. Try Bing
Pedro - "Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true."
Obama - "Hope and Change."
Trump - "MAGA."
Life imitates art.
@ Drago
For my own health, I don't read the blog enough. If TTR (I don't even know the usual players around here) says once a day that "republicans want everyone to die", so much the worse for TTR.
@ Craig
Remember when Sarah Palin mentioned death panels and Obama promised no rationing? Professor Gruber had some things to say.
Yahoo might work, failing Google or Bing.
I think if we opened immigration to law abiding Europeans, ARM would be surprised.
AReasonableMan said... People from Islamic countries cause a lot of problems, but so do the immigrants from all the other shitty countries, just in different ways. Once we start banning people from one set of shitty countries what criteria do we use to include or exclude all the other shitty countries in this ban? The right is very keen to ban people but has not produced a clear set of criteria for distinguishing the banned from the non-banned.
You ask this like it is a deep piercing question. Technically, we don't have to take any immigrants at all. The only reason to take in immigrants is they are a benefit to the country in some way.
But if we must have a test for this, the line I would put down is how likely is this immigrant going to assimilate into American culture. A lot of prior waves of immigration involved people from "shitty" countries (Ireland, Poland, Italy, etc.) who within a generation or two were without a doubt Americans and productive ones at that. Immigrants who come over and do not have jobs? Don't need them. Immigrants who comes over and teach their kids that all Americans should live under sharia law? Don't need them. Immigrants who think it is fine, nay, required to kill the infidel? I think we can do without. That one is not a difficult call at all.
@ Birkel
Your sniping is amusing. I suggest googling "read further up in this thread." You might get the result that the challenged bit had a bunch of elements: "You'll keep your doctor, save $2k, no pre approved conditions, everything's covered, you can't be denied". Finding one or two of those is cute, but no dice. You need all of them.
You might think I'm being picky that you need all of them. But then you'd realize that it is only the latter ones that would support the claim of yours that I called you out on to start all of this. The things you're googling up won't support "universal health care" = "[full satisfaction of] unlimited wants and need".
ARM thinks we need the immigration because our workers are sort of worthless and Ponzi schemes like Social Security always need new blood. Current low skilled workers can eat shit and die.
Static Ping said...
That one is not a difficult call at all.
These are criteria but they are untestable. How do you know how a particular immigrant will behave before he/she gets here, much less their children? What assurance do we have about any beliefs that they might or might not have?
Virtually Unknown said...
I think if we opened immigration to law abiding Europeans,
It is relatively easy for Europeans to immigrate here, by the standards of international immigration.
Virtually Unknown said...
ARM thinks we need the immigration because our workers are sort of worthless and Ponzi schemes like Social Security always need new blood. Current low skilled workers can eat shit and die.
I did not say this. Troll-like comment.
Professor Althouse, responding to a problem about trolling, suggested that we stop referring to each other by name. I wonder if an alternative solution might be to cut back on the paraphrasing and only respond to quotations. We'd probably get more substantive arguments (since people would have to focus on the details), and it's harder to strawman a quotation. (For what it is worth, some of Professor Althouse's best posts are where she gets into the nitty gritty of what others have said, carefully reading their words. We should use her as a model in this regard!)
Craig: "@ Drago For my own health, I don't read the blog enough."
I can't fault you for that.
ARM: "It is relatively easy for Europeans to immigrate here, by the standards of international immigration."
Not being in the habit of sawing off heads or supporting those who do should improve ones chances of emigrating to the US immensely.
But that's racist or something.
AReasonableMan said... These are criteria but they are untestable. How do you know how a particular immigrant will behave before he/she gets here, much less their children? What assurance do we have about any beliefs that they might or might not have?
It's called vetting. I mean, seriously, you can just ask them. That will weed out a lot more of them than you might think.
There is also the experience test. We brought in lots of X, X is not assimilating, we don't need more X. If we do take more X, we will be very particular on who we take.
If you are expecting 100% accuracy in this sort of thing, then, no, there is no testing that will ever be 100% accurate. Then again if 100% accuracy is the standard, then you are going to be very disappointed all the time. Perfection is a goal, not a standard.
Not as easy as Mexican peasants.
I think that is a fair summary of your position, you just don't like the way I made it sound. Same as peanut butter don't like being called a social Darwinist, even though he is one.
Ok, Craig: I don't have a quote from one person rattling all of those things off.
What I do have is this: What's the main objection to repealing Obamacare? "You are going to kill Grandma! I won't get treatment for free for my cancer! I won't have preexisting conditions covered!"
Where did all the people crawling out of the woodwork complaining that the Evil Republicans just want to murder them and take away all their health care get the idea that preexisting conditions were covered and that the doctors couldn't possibly refuse any health care they asked for?
I mean, we Republicans are the agents of Satan for wanting to take away all of their unlimited coverage for all of their health issues that they get for free because of St. Obama.
Where did they get that idea that they were entitled to unlimited free health care for everything for life? It certainly wasn't from the right.
Virtually Unknown said...
I think that is a fair summary of your position,
But this is because you are a moron. A non-moron would not think this. Why not deal with the words as they are written rather than as filtered through your moron brain? Can't do this? That's because you are a moron.
"But this is because you are a moron. A non-moron would not think this. Why not deal with the words as they are written rather than as filtered through your moron brain? Can't do this? That's because you are a moron."
Yes, I noticed.
Static Ping said...
If you are expecting 100% accuracy in this sort of thing
I would like to hear some solid bullet proof criteria that solve the problem. As you note vetting is not 100% and can never be made 100%. If you can't provide definitive criteria that eliminate the problem then you are saying that we must live with some risk, which is essentially the same thing that all the politicians are saying.
I'm thinking, Arm wants white people!
Is that allowed?
Not under Pro-Choice/diversity, specifically [class] diversity. The diversitists want a politically exploitable (i.e. disruptive, dependent) distribution of colors, sexes, and congruences, but mostly colors.
It's not only vetting.
It's the schools.
The French have a saying that it's a pleasure to be called a moron by an idiot, I don't think you are an idiot, just a bit dimmer than you think you are.
I am on my phone so I won't look for quotes, so I will have to leave it at that.
No idiot has called you a moron yet. Keep hope alive.
Oh good, Inga's here.
Inga, yesterday you said that the government cannot prohibit Muslims from entering the United States because of the Establishment clause. In other words, the world's Muslims have a Constitutional Right to enter the United States.
Now, we know from the 1800's that it is 100% Constitutional for the US Government to ban Mormons from holding public office, from voting, or from having spousal immunity. All upheld by the Supreme Court. The US Government literally dissolved the Mormon church and confiscated all their property--without paying full value. Again, constitutional. The Mormons were US citizens, no less.
But you say that the government cannot keep non-citizen Muslims out.
Please, therefore, tell me why non-citizen Muslims have Constitutional rights that citizen Mormons do not. I know you say that the government cannot seize a Mosque, or strip the right to vote from Muslims. So why can the government do it to Mormons?
--Vance
Yes I agree "Let's do an IQ test."
But don't be surprised if Donnie doesn't do well on the test. We will always have this once sentence "stream of consciousness" utterance from the president.
""Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."
"Inga, yesterday you said that the government cannot prohibit Muslims from entering the United States because of the Establishment clause. In other words, the world's Muslims have a Constitutional Right to enter the United States."
I said no such thing. You have a really bad habit of misinterpreting people's comments. A ban Travel Ban based solely on the person's religion is unconstitutional. You know, the fact that you cannot make an argument based on the actual words and meanings of your opponents speaks to your dishonesty. Don't address me until you can stop lying about what other's have said.
"I know you say that the government cannot seize a Mosque, or strip the right to vote from Muslims. So why can the government do it to Mormons?"
WTF is wrong with you? Again you attribute a comment to me I never made. I am not interested in arguing with a liar. Go find another person to bother.
You know, Sadiq Khan can describe being run over by a van rented by a Muslim or having one's throat slashed as just another "inconvenience" of life in a modern big city, but I'd like to know whether he goes around with an armed bodyguard. Random attacks for us, but not for him!
"@Brookzene, no sense bitching about Trump. If you wanted better than him you should have told your Dumbocrat friends to put up someone better than Hillary."
I've been figuring he won fair and square, and that's all anyone's heard from me about that. Of course, I'm open to correction, from the NSA for example. I also figure it's true Hillary cleaned his clock in the popular vote, but I know that's not what makes a president.
Also doesn't change the fact that Trump isn't fit for office. Whattaya gonna do?
Inga: I'm just asking you to justify your "It's an Establishment violation". Mormons were stripped of the right to vote by the US Supreme Court in Davis v. Beeson, solely because they were Mormon. 9-0 was the vote.
So you say a ban based solely on religion is unconstitutional, but the Mormons lost the right to vote, only on religion. And that was constitutional.
So why is a ban unconstitutional again?
--Vance
In your opinion, Brookzene. Not a fact.
Sadiq Khan, a brown-skinned left-leaning Laborite, dismissed terrorism as just another inconvenience of life in a great city, and therefore nothing much to worry about.
Oh, you people do love worrying, don't you!
Does it cause as many deaths proportionately as do guns in America? Do you worry about that?
Connies are pretty crazy. Feeling too overwhelmed by terrorism to accept that it's primarily a law enforcement issue, and too overwhelmed by Islam to realize that jihadi doctrines are better battled by civil society, not the freaking government.
Vance, here's a tip. Go write a letter to the Justice Department and sell your argument to them. Maybe they'll use it to argue the case in front of the Supreme Court. BTW, if your argument held water, why didn't Trump's lawyers argue it to the Appeals Courts? Did they? Go bother the DOJ.
Via Insty:
MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD ASK HIM ABOUT THIS TOMORROW: Ex-intel contractor sues Comey, alleging FBI covered up mass civil liberties violations. “A former U.S. intelligence contractor tells Circa he walked out with more than 600 million highly classified documents on 47 hard drives from the National Security Agency’s archives. It was a breach potentially larger than Edward Snowden’s, and now he is suing fired FBI Director James Comey and other current and ex-government officials, alleging the bureau has covered up evidence he claims he provided them showing widespread illegal spying on Americans. . . . Montgomery divulged to the FBI a ‘pattern and practice of conducting illegal, unconstitutional surveillance against millions of Americans, including prominent Americans such as the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen, and others such as Donald J. Trump, as well as Plaintiffs themselves,’ Montgomery and Klayman alleged in their suit.”
Flashback: Maxine Waters: ‘Obama Has Put In Place’ Secret Database With ‘Everything On Everyone:’
Here goes Vancey! Citing 1890 decisions closer to the Dred Scott timeline than to the Brennan and Burger courts.
Not only do Trump supporters prefer a 19th century energy source, they prefer 19th century jurisprudence.
Vance would have made a great SCOTUS nominee. Back in the 19th century lawyers didn't even have to complete law school training.
Vance, here's a tip. Go write a letter to the Justice Department and sell your argument to them.
Does he get to do that from his armchair?
Maybe he can request that they interview him via Skype.
That is, if his busy schedule of granting interviews as an expert contributor to large cable audience broadcasts allows.
In your opinion, Brookzene. Not a fact.
Fair enough @Seeing Red, fair enough. But tell me the truth, what do you think of Trump's challenge to Khan in an IQ test. I mean, he's a grown-ass adult, supposedly right?
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Does it cause as many deaths proportionately as do guns in America? Do you worry about that?
A gun is a tool. It performs according to the wishes of the user. Guns cause exactly 0 deaths.
Connies are pretty crazy. Feeling too overwhelmed by terrorism to accept that it's primarily a law enforcement issue, and too overwhelmed by Islam to realize that jihadi doctrines are better battled by civil society, not the freaking government.
You had a revelation. Soon you will figure out the same goes for healthcare.
I'm nowhere near the non-expert that Vancey is, but IIRC the Trump "Country First, Planet Last" travel ban was struck down because it discriminated against Muslim families already in the U.S. by separating their families abroad from them.
Although I'm sure he feels that the jurisprudence of anti-religious discrimination must have advanced substantially since the days of the Know Nothings.
A gun is a tool. It performs according to the wishes of the user. Guns cause exactly 0 deaths.
Good. Then if that's all it is, it seems you've laid the rhetorical groundwork for an outright ban of them. Nuclear radiation is also just a tool whose use depends on the intention of the user. Time to register with the NRC! Don't worry, though. I'm sure Dancing with the Stars imbecile Rick Perry will go easy on your civilian's petition for a permit to use plutonium.
Brookzene said...
Fair enough @Seeing Red, fair enough. But tell me the truth, what do you think of Trump's challenge to Khan in an IQ test. I mean, he's a grown-ass adult, supposedly right?
So it is ok for people to call Trump stupid, but Trump can't correctly point out he is smarter than the people calling him stupid. Grown ass adult's don't compare intelligence?
Didn't this start with a leftist calling Trump stupid? Oh that's right it did.
If you weren't an idiot(see how childish I am?) you would be able to step back and self evaluate and notice this.
@Brookzene, Trump did win fair and square. Keep yourself aware of that. No one told Hillary to run up the vote where she didn't need to (like California), nor told her to waste time campaigning in states she had no chance to win (like Arizona), nor told her not to campaign in Wisconsin. Whenever you think about Trump, just remember that he was a vastly superior campaigner, and the Hillary! Is. Stupid.
You had a revelation. Soon you will figure out the same goes for healthcare.
Well I wasn't visited by voices or prophets. Healthcare may be too complicated for you or Trump too understand, but unlike religion its not magical and completely confined to what's in the mind of the participant (although who knows? Perhaps you've been to Sarah Palin's witch doctor). It's actually a pretty technical and often very precise thing that is regulated in all 50 states and at the federal level and there aren't enough red state district town hall participants you can kill off and price out of the market quickly enough to pull the wool over their eyes on your plan above. Although if you disagree I suggest you go trying to practice medicine without a license, right now. Do it tomorrow. Invent a procedure, come up with the disease it's supposed to cure, and set up shop. I guarantee you that both your fellow citizens, your local news crew and state law enforcement will agree to let you see the "revelation" on where that gets you in no time!
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Good. Then if that's all it is, it seems you've laid the rhetorical groundwork for an outright ban of them.
If every government in the world gives up every one of their weapons forever I am all for it.
Until then be a peach and understand guns are the only guarantee of freedom we have. The courts and the government at one point were supposed to guarantee our freedom but the left is incessantly trying to take freedom away. This particularly in light of how violent and abusive leftists have become in our country.
"So it is ok for people to call Trump stupid, but Trump can't correctly point out he is smarter than the people calling him stupid. Grown ass adult's don't compare intelligence?"
All Presidents get called stupid. Trust me on this, until now every single president has rejected the "I challenge you to an IQ test!" gambit. Trump's as feeble as a third-grader.
I might add that nothing Hillary has done, or her supporters have done, or Dumbocrats have done, or the antifa has done since the election makes me regret my vote for a nanosecond. No sense telling Trump to grow up when his opponents act like infantile, ignorant twits.
Until then be a peach and understand guns are the only guarantee of freedom we have. The courts and the government at one point were supposed to guarantee our freedom but the left is incessantly trying to take freedom away. This particularly in light of how violent and abusive leftists have become in our country.
What a strange worldview you have. You really do see everything as right v. left, don't you?
The courts are doing their job. Trump sees laws as an inconvenience. Trump was a Democrat up until not more than a decade ago. Contributed to Chuck Schumer. Son-in-law Kushner is quoted as saying that he switched parties cause he thought your side would be easier to dupe and to give him power.
Guns are not a guarantee of anything and even if they were they are not the "only" one. The 2nd amendment was one of ten in the bill of rights. The others are pretty important - all nine of them. As is the actual constitution. The extent to which your fellow travelers make a fetish out of amendment 2 just reflects how important violence is to you. Our culture and government are more important, esp. when not caught in the crosshairs of partisans who see all life and all politics as a zero-sum game.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Well I wasn't visited by voices or prophets. Healthcare may be too complicated for you or Trump too understand, but unlike religion its not magical and completely confined to what's in the mind of the participant (although who knows? Perhaps you've been to Sarah Palin's witch doctor). It's actually a pretty technical and often very precise thing that is regulated in all 50 states and at the federal level and there aren't enough red state district town hall participants you can kill off and price out of the market quickly enough to pull the wool over their eyes on your plan above. Although if you disagree I suggest you go trying to practice medicine without a license, right now. Do it tomorrow. Invent a procedure, come up with the disease it's supposed to cure, and set up shop. I guarantee you that both your fellow citizens, your local news crew and state law enforcement will agree to let you see the "revelation" on where that gets you in no time!
I just posted the whole thing so you could go back and look at what you wrote. That is a meandering unfocused wall of text with silly points.
That last sentence has reminded me to call the naturopath and make an appointment.(TRT =D) There is an outside chance HGH is available but alas the government doesn't think we should have open access to any of that.
I understand healthcare fairly well. The parts that are getting better and cheaper are Eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. Because they are regulated much less. The parts that are getting more expensive are the parts the government keeps commandeering.
Over the next 10-20 years health care is going to go through a revolution that makes it massively cheaper and more accessible. The only barrier to poor people getting it will be the government. It makes everything in health care more expensive and harder to access. It is almost as if there are people sitting in a building that know nothing about health care trying to protect their own privilege.
Why didn't guns guarantee the "freedom" of the Branch Davidians?
What a chin-scratcher that one is.
That last sentence has reminded me to call the naturopath and make an appointment.(TRT =D) There is an outside chance HGH is available but alas the government doesn't think we should have open access to any of that.
I understand healthcare fairly well.
Apparently not well enough to understand the purpose of the FDA or the fact that that one's not going away, either.
The parts that are getting better and cheaper are Eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. Because they are regulated much less.
You really either don't remember things well or hate reading what I write. I told you last week that they're less risky. You know what else is "cheaper and better?" Toenail surgery. Hair transplantation. You seem to lack any understanding of how medical risk is measured, and just write it out of your calculus altogether.
Over the next 10-20 years health care is going to go through a revolution that makes it massively cheaper and more accessible. The only barrier to poor people getting it will be the government. It makes everything in health care more expensive and harder to access. It is almost as if there are people sitting in a building that know nothing about health care trying to protect their own privilege.
Let me know when the day comes that the naturopath can fix Dick Cheney's heart failure. Last I heard, it required an implant, a transplant, an automatic defibrillator, treatment for multiple heart attacks, and, well - I can guess the rest but each case is unique. But apparently he's just too fancy and elite to trust a heart that doesn't work with the natural healers.
@ Achilles
That something is a tool does not mean that it does not have causal efficacy. Sentences like "Lighter footballs caused touchdown numbers to go up," "the warmed oven caused the bread to rise," and "the automobile caused the spread of the American city" are not incoherent even if the footballs were intentionally lightened, the oven was intentionally turned on, and the automobile was intentionally designed. You're going against both the ordinary practice of science and ordinary language if you want to claim that those sentences are all faulty predications.
So we're back to the original question: "Does [terrorism] cause as many deaths proportionately as do guns in America? Do you worry about that?"
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
What a strange worldview you have. You really do see everything as right v. left, don't you?
Honestly right v left holds nothing for me. It is statist vs. citizen for me. I don't think standard ideologies are going to matter soon. The only thing that will matter is freedom or not freedom. It is the left that has always pushed the statist cause. There is nothing you people don't want the government in control of.
The courts are doing their job. Trump sees laws as an inconvenience. Trump was a Democrat up until not more than a decade ago. Contributed to Chuck Schumer. Son-in-law Kushner is quoted as saying that he switched parties cause he thought your side would be easier to dupe and to give him power.
The courts are decidedly not doing their job. That is a fucking retarded statement. The laws on immigration are clear and they grant the president clear powers over immigration in plain English. You have judges citing tweets for gods sake.
Guns are not a guarantee of anything and even if they were they are not the "only" one.
The 2nd amendment was one of ten in the bill of rights. The others are pretty important - all nine of them. As is the actual constitution.
You brought guns up. And I am going to point out that my favorite amendment, the 10th amendment, is also the most abused one.
The extent to which your fellow travelers make a fetish out of amendment 2 just reflects how important violence is to you.
It is your friends on the left that have been violent. This is a stupid whine.
Our culture and government are more important, esp. when not caught in the crosshairs of partisans who see all life and all politics as a zero-sum game.
TTR is declaiming partisanship? Thank goodness you came to your senses.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Let me know when the day comes that the naturopath can fix Dick Cheney's heart failure. Last I heard, it required an implant, a transplant, an automatic defibrillator, treatment for multiple heart attacks, and, well - I can guess the rest but each case is unique. But apparently he's just too fancy and elite to trust a heart that doesn't work with the natural healers.
How did the government aid his heart surgery?
Honestly right v left holds nothing for me. It is statist vs. citizen for me. I don't think standard ideologies are going to matter soon.
That's good. Will practicalities matter then, instead?
The only thing that will matter is freedom or not freedom.
Oh. Whoops! Guess not.
Craig said...
So we're back to the original question: "Does [terrorism] cause as many deaths proportionately as do guns in America? Do you worry about that?"
You seem to be new here. And not terribly bright.
Posting a bunch of crap that dodges the point I made then asking the same stupid question again is dumb.
I think terrorism in the US is much more difficult because the average citizen is armed. All of the mass casualty events with guns seem to occur in "gun free" zones. Why would that happen?
How did the government aid his heart surgery?
Well, in the context you're ignoring, apparently by holding the power to sue the pants off of any naturopath attempting to cut open into his chest cavity and do what the better trained cardiovascular surgeons did.
And by withholding funds to any hospitals in which that took place that did not conform to standard practice guidelines related to everything from sanitation and hygiene and infection control and basic surgical best practices.
You are creating a fantasy here.
Trump probably has higher IQ, but he better be careful not to challenge the Paki to a spelling contest. They are pretty darn good at spelling.
And, BTW, speaking of IQ, if ou let your Mensa membership expire, wait a couple of weeks and they will offer a discount.
The courts are decidedly not doing their job. That is a fucking retarded statement. The laws on immigration are clear and they grant the president clear powers over immigration in plain English. You have judges citing tweets for gods sake.
The tweets are evidence and I would not trust you to argue someone out of a traffic ticket penalty with all the ignorance you reveal of basic law and procedure here.
No offense, of course! ;-)
There are other things I'd trust you to. Just not to arguing a case brought on my behalf before a court of law.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
That's good. Will practicalities matter then, instead?
The base of this disagreement is the requirement of mutual agreement and the monopoly on the use of force.
If Google wants me to buy something or use their service no matter how large they get they have to get my willing participation.
The government does not have to ask. It holds a monopoly on legal force and can throw you in jail.
Do you understand how this corresponds to the discussion?
@ Achilles
As you sink to insults, let's be clear.
You said, "A gun is a tool. It performs according to the wishes of the user. Guns cause exactly 0 deaths."
I responded by pointing out that the inference from something being a tool to lacking causal efficacy is a poor inference. That is neither crap nor dodging the point you made. That is a substantive response to your particular claim. Your argument was a poor argument; I called you out on it.
You're now switching arguments. That's good--it means you've abandoned the prior bad argument. But it also means that you have evaded the fair question put to you some time back (and I presume you're evading it because you don't have a good answer to it).
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
The tweets are evidence and I would not trust you to argue someone out of a traffic ticket penalty with all the ignorance you reveal of basic law and procedure here.
The tweets are evidence Trump says shit. He didn't write the laws and he didn't write the constitution. The LAW is written words. There is a legal process and the leftists pretending to be judges are shitcanning the process and essentially saying "Fuck the laws we don't like that guy."
Do you see some potential problems with that kind of ruling?
"And, BTW, speaking of IQ, if ou let your Mensa membership expire, wait a couple of weeks and they will offer a discount."
That's brilliant.
Do you understand how this corresponds to the discussion?
Nope.
We talked about guns, which you (and to a lesser extent, I) want available to citizens as a check against that monopoly on using force.
We also talked about health care which has about as much connection to the sort of force you mention as stardust. Taxes are taxes, as John Roberts ruled. If you want to drive up the costs of others' premiums by taking advantage of youth and a predilection toward naturopathy, there is no precedent for forcing them to allow you the same tax exemption that the more responsible citizens enjoy. They are the ones being responsible, they get the tax loophole. When you want to stop arguing on behalf of the "right" to rip off others among us who are doing our part to remain in the pool that RESPONSIBLY keeps healthcare costs as low as we can get them, then you can talk about how to radically alter policy to conform to your naturopathic unregulated, anti-physician utopian free market ideal. Or until you find a way to make medicine as simple as you wish it were.
So not a single leftist can explain why they say Muslims have rights that the government legally took away from the Mormons. TTR lots of cases " loser to added Scott" than today are foundational parts of our law. Marbury v Madison. Pennoyer v Neff. The Reynolds case.
So please explain why you agree the government can persecute the Mormons or indeed the Branch Davidians but Muslims are exempt from our laws.
-- Vance
Craig said...
I responded by pointing out that the inference from something being a tool to lacking causal efficacy is a poor inference. That is neither crap nor dodging the point you made. That is a substantive response to your particular claim. Your argument was a poor argument; I called you out on it.
This is not what happened. You posted this:
That something is a tool does not mean that it does not have causal efficacy. Sentences like "Lighter footballs caused touchdown numbers to go up," "the warmed oven caused the bread to rise," and "the automobile caused the spread of the American city" are not incoherent even if the footballs were intentionally lightened, the oven was intentionally turned on, and the automobile was intentionally designed. You're going against both the ordinary practice of science and ordinary language if you want to claim that those sentences are all faulty predications.
This is a bunch of nothing.
You're now switching arguments. That's good--it means you've abandoned the prior bad argument. But it also means that you have evaded the fair question put to you some time back (and I presume you're evading it because you don't have a good answer to it).
As soon as you see a gun float up in the air by itself, chamber a round, and shoot that round at someone killing them let me know. Guns have no agency. They cannot act, think, make decisions. If you make a football lighter or whatever dumb example you want to use it still just sits on the ground until someone picks it up. Until then guns kill 0 people. If you want to talk about causing death rates to go up make that argument. We will talk about where and who are causing most of those deaths.(hint: it is democrats) But guns kill nobody.
The double-edged scalpel. Leftists are looking for a way to deflect attention from terrorism, abortion rites, progress of anti-nativism, and elective wars that force catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform.
BREAKING: DNI Coats told associates in March that Trump asked if he could intervene with Comey on FBI Russia probe.
About that IQ thing...
The tweets are evidence Trump says shit.
They're evidence of his intent. What he intends the E.O. to accomplish is evidence of how he does or does not comply with the constitution when implementing them. Even his hobbled, drug-war-fixated DOJ understands this. It's basic legal competence. It's one reason why good lawyers tell their clients to keep their mouths shut. Trump gives away his whole game.
Do you see some potential problems with that kind of ruling?
Not at all. And stop demeaning the justice system.
I said no such thing. You have a really bad habit of misinterpreting people's comments. A ban Travel Ban based solely on the person's religion is unconstitutional. You know, the fact that you cannot make an argument based on the actual words and meanings of your opponents speaks to your dishonesty. Don't address me until you can stop lying about what other's have said."
You could stop by your misconstruing Trump's EO. He didn't ban all Muslims worldwide, just people from several countries where the central government is practically nonexistent and terrorist run rampant.
@ Achilles
Ahahahahahahahaha! Your new point is that things without agency can't kill people? Give me a break. See, e.g., a whole lot of things without agency being described as causes of death.
You seem to want us to accept some tacit conclusion that if intention or agency are involved, then intention or agency are all there is to causation. Why in the world would you think that? It certainly isn't consistent with any reasonable notion of causation (or, for what it is worth, science).
@ Achilles
I almost overlooked a better part of this: "As soon as you see a gun float up in the air by itself, chamber a round, and shoot that round at someone killing them let me know." I'm not sure I see why the argument suggested here would be good. Do you think a cause has to be an independently sufficient cause in order to be a cause? Firefighters and doctors around the world disagree. Do you think something has to be an ultimate cause in order to be a cause? Your own argument fails: no shooter is the ultimate cause of the death of the shot person!
I started this discussion with you by pushing you to think harder about a central part of your argument. I don't think there's any reason for you to have jumped to insults. But insults or no, you should still think harder about a central part of your argument.
"Trump has been watching TV more than usual, swatting away suggestions to cool it, and tweeting whatever he wants." - Robert Costa
Not a high IQ look.
"You could stop by your misconstruing Trump's EO. He didn't ban all Muslims worldwide...."
I never said he did. You're doing the same thing Vance is doing. What is wrong with you people?
Profile not available asserted: You seem to want us to accept some tacit conclusion that if intention or agency are involved, then intention or agency are all there is to causation. Why in the world would you think that? It certainly isn't consistent with any reasonable notion of causation (or, for what it is worth, science).
All of those causes require the passive (aggressive) voice to complete a logical sentence.
I already know you're weak on science, but grammar too?
Inga,
The problem I always had with psych nurses is that they needed to read the instructions on how to empty a bed pan. Unfortunately, the instructions were printed on the bottom of the pan. The results were often messy.
The same goes for your political arguments. You read the DNC talking points and try to ad lib from there. It's messy and it stinks.
I can't believe I am saying this but I am starting to feel sorry for Jeff Sessions.
Sessions will be fine.
Whatever he thinks of him he's kind of stuck with Sessions. He doesn't want to deal with Rosenstein.
@ chickelet
Profile not available asserted: You seem to want us to accept some tacit conclusion that if intention or agency are involved, then intention or agency are all there is to causation. Why in the world would you think that? It certainly isn't consistent with any reasonable notion of causation (or, for what it is worth, science).
All of those causes require the passive (aggressive) voice to complete a logical sentence.
That's false. Cancer causes death. Heart failure causes death. And the same works with particulars: Cancer killed him. Heart failure killed him.
(You could beg the question about the conceptual working of causation. But a) that'd be question-begging, obviously, and b) you'd be in the wrong anyway.)
If you know that I'm weak on science or weak on grammar, start pointing out mistakes with regard to either I've made. Otherwise, engage the substance.
I can't believe I am saying this but I am starting to feel sorry for Jeff Sessions.
Anyone tasked with doing something for Trump deserves sympathy.
Craig listed heart failure and cancer as causative agents.
What about guns, knives, and cars?
@ chickelit
This is the problem with trying to have a discussion with people on the Internet. They squirm, rather than think.
To recap:
1) Achilles said, "A gun is a tool. It performs according to the wishes of the user. Guns cause exactly 0 deaths."
2) I gave bunches of examples where it was implausible to deny that a tool had causal efficacy.
3) Achilles mucked around with insults a bit, then pointed to the lack of agency for denying causation.
4) I, predictably, gave a bunch of counterexamples of non-agential causes, causes of death even. I also pointed out problems with a couple of potential reasons Achilles might have liked the lack-of-agency principle.
5) Chickelet weighed in: "All of those causes require the passive (aggressive) voice to complete a logical sentence."
6) I, predictably again, gave a bunch of examples of perfectly logical and grammatical sentences where those causes were the subjects of the sentence.
7) Chickelet apparently conceded the point from 5 (which had to happen, as 5 was a terrible point to make). Now: "What about guns, knives, and cars?"
I'm assuming you aren't making the same terrible point about grammaticality. It's a horrible point. So maybe you're asking the substantive question, "Can guns, knives, and cars kill people?" That's exactly what we've been discussing, so you can review my points made so far.
@ARM: Oh, I see what you're talking about regarding Sessions. I wasn't up to speed with you on that.
So who is ABC's "source"?
I'm getting tired of "authorities" relying on faceless, nameless, sources.
BTW, did you see The Onion's spoof of anonymous sources? link
Chickelet apparently conceded the point from 5 (which had to happen, as 5 was a terrible point to make).
To be perfectly honest, your link doesn't open in my Safari.
Still waiting for you to explain how a gun kills a person.
"A gun killed him" -- while in the vernacular -- is incorrect. It's more correct to say "a man was killed by a gun." This doesn't give the gun agency.
@ARM: The problem with ABC relying on anonymous source is that they could just as well be making it up. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.
Post a Comment