Regarding some people skating and some getting creamed, does Trump know any foreign leaders? We know he admires Putin, and we know he has an endorsement from Kim Jong-un.paperburn1 wrote:So then its by angry villagers with pitchfork and torches.
I am in.
Seriously there now seems to be a third guy out there making the grade. The press is now slamming Gary johnson as fast and furious as they can.
while he has some thing I do not agree with he is most definitely far superior to the other two candidates and I believe congress can keep those inclinations in check.
Tom Ligon wrote:Ahem. Please read the entire text of the tidbit below:Diogenes wrote:
And this is the salient point you and I both are making. The Left-Wing Media monopoly deliberately attempts to steer elections by focusing primarily on the faults of one candidate regardless of their severity as compared to similar or worse faults of the Left-Wing Candidate, and covering up (by not reporting it) detrimental information regarding their preferred candidate.
They need to be stripped of this power, either by law, or by angry villagers with pitchfork and torches.
The one-party monopoly is too powerful and is now a threat to the nation.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would suggest that if you do not agree with the First Amendment, you are un-American.
No, it just heavily leans Democrat. There are still a few Republican newspapers out there, but the "press" is dying, and will soon be completely dead. It has been replaced by this brain bypassing technology called "video" and which is now being transmitted on millions of different communications channels all controlled by Liberals.Tom Ligon wrote: There is no one-party monopoly of the press.
Tom Ligon wrote: There may be a lot more people in the press with less fascist views that your own,
Tom Ligon wrote:
And please, if you must cite Professor Harold Hill, at least cite the REAL one, played by Robert Preston.
paperburn1 wrote:So then its by angry villagers with pitchfork and torches.
I am in.
Seriously there now seems to be a third guy out there making the grade. The press is now slamming Gary johnson as fast and furious as they can.
while he has some thing I do not agree with he is most definitely far superior to the other two candidates and I believe congress can keep those inclinations in check.
5. Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.
Tom Ligon wrote:
Regarding some people skating and some getting creamed, does Trump know any foreign leaders? We know he admires Putin, and we know he has an endorsement from Kim Jong-un.
Johnson could not name a current foreign leader he admires. Honestly, I'm having trouble doing so right now, myself. I can think of some FORMER ones I admired, and I can think of plenty of foreign leaders I don't admire.
There are a lot of scumbags out there leading countries. Apart from the usual list of murderous dictators, we now have Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who has been encouraging widespread extrajudicial killings by the thousands or maybe tens of thousands. I have no great love of drug dealers and gangsters, but this one I hold up as an example of what to expect if a supposed democracy elects someone with zero respect for the law. He actually manages to make our present choices look not so bad, not to say ours are not horrible.Diogenes wrote:
Right there with you. Frankly the choices among foreign leaders are about as bad as our own election right now.
I admire Bibi, and I have a grudging admiration for Putin. At least he behaves as a man would who is protecting his country's interests.
I'm liking what i'm hearing from the leadership of former Eastern Bloc nations. A lot of them are behaving rationally, unlike their Euro counterparts.
Alas, in 2003 a great crime was committed in the release of a version of "The Music Man" starring Matthew Broderick. This dull imitation of the Robert Preston movie is so bad it might constitute a rare justification for censorship.Diogenes wrote:Tom Ligon wrote:
And please, if you must cite Professor Harold Hill, at least cite the REAL one, played by Robert Preston.
I thought I had. Are you telling me that isn't Robert Preston? You see, I wanted to find the right pose; One which made it clear that he was some sort of flim-flam man trying to con a crowd, and so I started my search with "Robert Preston" as my keywords. I found lots of him as Professor Harold Hill, but none in the right pose. When I found that one, I thought it was the best I could do to convey the " con-man" vibe I was looking for.
I thought it was Robert Preston.
Eh, I think you're right. Upon magnification, it doesn't look like Robert Preston.
Nothing in the Constitution is designed even in theory to make the "press" or in modern terms the media, objective, fair and unbiased. There is no real legal way to do that. The problem isn't just that they are biased per see; it is more than that. The issue is that it seems to me that back in the day people knew instinctively that their were pro-unions newspapers for instance and anti-union newspapers. Pro civil rights newspapers and of course anti-civil rights newspapers. They (the readers) just selected what they read accordingly. The problem now days is a vast swath of the public seems to think the main stream media like the three main networks, CNN, MSNBC & especially it seems NPR are "fair" and unbiased. Even on the rare occasions NPR has admitted its liberal bias it doesn't seem to stick with most of the public. The only ones they will allow for as "biased" is Fox news (& of course talk radio that Obama & Hillary would luv to "fairness doctrine" into oblivion). Sean Hannity & Bill O'reilly at least state their biases for Trump openly. I have watched/listened to Rachel Maddow almost literally gush all over Hillary Clinton giddy as a school girl to be interviewing her, yet she/they have cred as objective journalists. The question is how it (the media) got that way. I would surmise one of the vectors is probably our tenured academia professorships; they used academic freedom as a way to systematically stack most of our ivy league universities with professors who have the "right" views, typically liberal leftists. There is no free market of ideas at work at such universities culling ones that don't work in the real world; tenure guaranteed lifetime employment combined with a bully pulpit to mold young minds as they see fit, with little repercussion. They (the professors) at ivy league universities probably groom/cull from the student body select individuals who have the right views into the media by using their influence in hiring. Recommendations from high status professors from ivy league universities who have systematically cultivated relationships with the right people in the media companies who do the hiring. Add to that the sheer power of the mass media; dwarfing newspapers back in the day or even radio; literally beaming images into peoples home's now 24/7; nothing really compares to it. The only remedy I can see off hand is the internet; and of course they are working on controlling that too; that issue that caused Cruz to finally endorse/support Trump. The awarding of ip addresses going from US controlled to controlled by some shadowy international body; don't really understand it (the issue) very well.Tom Ligon wrote:There is no one-party monopoly of the press. There may be a lot more people in the press with less fascist views that your own, and so you may perceive the press as dangerously liberal, but they get to print what they like, as does Breitbart.
Rudolph Giuliani: Trump is right about ‘stop and frisk.’ Lester Holt should apologize
But according to candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt during Monday night’s presidential debate, stop and frisk is “unconstitutional.” They are wrong. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, it’s the usual misrepresenting she does when she does not know what she is talking about. As for Mr. Holt, if a moderator is going to interfere, he should do some homework and not pretend to know the law when he does not. Mr. Holt and NBC cannot overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio. That ruling hasn’t been overturned or even modified by the court since it was handed down in 1968. Stop and frisk is constitutional and the law of the land. The majority opinion, written by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren, approved the constitutionality of stopping a suspect if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, or was about to commit, a crime. If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion the person is armed, he can conduct a pat-down—that is, a frisk—of a person’s outer clothing.
Rudy Giuliani
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/ ... ogize.html
I wasn’t astonished when Lester Holt tried to prop up Mrs. Clinton in the debate, but actually to interrupt Mr. Trump to insist that he knows the law when he doesn’t was a bit surprising. Perhaps he does know the law and this was planned? He knew the question would come up. He presumably was briefed on the law and Terry v. Ohio. Yet he interrupted Mr. Trump to assert a falsehood. This did not come as an astonishment to many;
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/ ... trump.html
One Federal Judge did decree that because more black and Hispanics were stopped and frisked, the practice as employed in New York City was racist. That governs no one in Chicago, where Mr. Trump recommends the practice be applied..
And Finally:As the NYPD release rightly notes, “Stop, Question and Frisk is not unconstitutional,” and even Judge Shira Scheindlin’s disastrous 2013 ruling never said so.
Fact is, the Supreme Court found it constitutional back in 1968 and has never reversed or even modified that decision. Scheindlin ruled merely that the NYPD’s use of the tactic had shown “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights, claiming racial bias.
Then the US Court of Appeals threw her off the case because her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
And it stayed her ruling — a step usually taken only when a decision is unlikely to survive the full appellate process.
But higher courts never finished examining her decision — because de Blasio, who’d won his race for mayor vowing to end the practice, squelched the city’s appeal.
Trump was also right to call Scheindlin “a very anti-police judge.” One of her own former clerks told The New Yorker that “she thinks cops lie.”
http://nypost.com/2016/09/28/clinton-is ... mps-right/
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosman ... r-matters/Trump had said, many times, that he’s not going to discuss strategy for the enemy benefit, and I agree with that. He has said he will do it rapidly, which suggests that he plans to accept the Caliphate’s declaration of war on the United States, and retaliate massively. I’d recommend a Corps sized expeditionary force, including one heavy armored division, with an air support team including both the A-10 Warthogs and a wing of air supremacy SAM busters. That will do it fast and with few casualties. It is an elementary military principle that you use overwhelming force at the point of contact (if you can); this keeps casualties low and actually costs less than trying to do the job on the cheap. As to what we do when we have conquered ISIDS, it will be our territory; we won’t do it as a favor for Iraq and/or Syria. We will own the oilfields, too. We can dispose of that territory as we will, partitioning it into more stable regions. I suggest we give the King of Jordan a reasonable part of Sunni Iraq, hopefully a portion with some oilfields in it. He can use the income, and the Middle East can use the kind of stability he has brought to his part of it. The Kurds also have a high stake here.
The important part to remember is that ISIS rules only if it rules. Its legitimacy is that it applies Sharia to areas it controls; if it controls no area, if it sovereign nowhere, then it is just another terrorist group; perhaps not the Junior Varsity, but not a Caliphate. Its main attractiveness to recruits is that it claims to fulfill the will of Allah, and Allah favours the Caliphate.
I do not know Mr. Trump’s plans; I doubt he does in detail. I do know he does not consider himself a military expert and will seek advice from those he thinks are; just as when he decides to construct a new building, he does not start with blueprints of the men’s room (or whatever the Federal regulators require in the area he will build it). He will have to decide on policy, he may even choose a plumbing company, but I’d be much surprised if he spent much time on ball cocks. Eisenhower built highways, but he wasn’t a civil engineer.
Diogenes wrote:Bush negotiated the initial forces agreement, but Obama didn't want to continue it, so when the Iraqi's demanded more concessions, Obama pulled out because that's what he wanted to do anyway. But this is beyond just pulling our forces out of Iraq, (which was a colossally stupid blunder) the evidence so far appears to indicate that Obama and Hillary were running a "fast and furious" gun running scheme to the "Syrian Rebels" which were in fact the Core group we now know as "ISIS."