Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 307 of 373 FirstFirst ... 207 257 297 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 317 357 ... LastLast
Results 3,061 to 3,070 of 3729
  1. #3061
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    If we don't really know how many there are, how can we quantify the services they use?
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  2. #3062
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BugI02 View Post
    Still playing Socrates, I see. I will assume the thrust of the question to be the interpretation I can answer

    Things I could criticize about Trump (recent events edition)

    1) Staying in Syria after not staying in Syria after staying in Syria. I see nothing to potentially be gained in Syria worth anything near the likely cost in blood and treasure. The leave Syria/Stay Syria cost him Mattis (ignoring the supposition that Mattis was a snake, which I don't think is completely correct) for no gain whatsoever. I sympathize with the plight of the Kurds somewhat, but not enough to sacrifice one more US soldier. They have the same problem the Palestinians do, to a lesser degree - so much of what they want just isn't going to happen

    2) Not declassifying and releasing all the source material surrounding Russia! Russia! Russia! that is possible. I believe the narrative that the Obama appointed/supporting heads of the DoJ and the surveillance state conceived and executed a plan to weaken Trump, make it harder for him to get quality cabinet members, and distract him from actually running the country at a crucial time in order to hopefully get rid of him with your cherished BAMN. I think this borders on actual treason on their part. If he has relevant data and can release it, he should. Many of us are bright enough to see where that evidence leads, regardless of the expected howling and spin of the MSM. I am still hopeful that this is the intent and the delay is a matter of timing

    3) The bumpstock ban. Deeply ambivalent about this one, though. I don't like our guy giving an inch on 2A without a fight; but I believe that these are the stupidest, most useless accessories for a firearm and only serve some purpose in the most unlikely #ResistTyranny fever dreams. If you have rapid fire but you can't aim it, you might as well just have a MAC10. I'm pissed that morons made this the hill they wanted us to die on. Almost a wash for me except I wish he had put up more of a fight, if he thought rolling over would get him some maneuvering room elsewhere he was wrong and this calls into question the whole 4D chess thing - maybe should stick to 3D

    4) I'm ambivalent about the plan to end the criminalization of homosexuality. We already pretty much don't have that, neither does the civilized west. He's going to have to make headway in the ME, the far east and Africa. It's a tough row to hoe, is a distraction from arguably more important first order concerns, and lacks an apparent carrot or stick. It just seems like cynical pandering designed to give the appearance of doing something without any real expectation he can affect the issue in anything more than a marginal way. This makes me wonder if he is more cynical and political than I currently believe

    5) The wall emergency declaration, but not for any reason remotely similar to you. As I've stated previously, I think the only thing that has prevented Democrats from using exactly these methods is they might not have thought of it. Once it was talked about, I don't think anything Trump does or does not do will affect the likelihood of them using the stratagem in the slightest, so the whole bad precedent thing is a non-starter for me. What bothers me is if this was deliberately timed. If the whole point is that the planning encompassed the knowledge it would be tied up in the courts for quite a while, this too speaks to cynical politicking - giving the appearance of going to the wall for the wall just to seem to be fighting the good fight.
    I see two ways it could play out. First, the timing correctly allows for the court challenges to exhaust themselves and the wall is well under way in November 2020 - I'm OK with this, even if the timing is off. Second, the timing is designed to not be effective before the election and is thus intentional manipulation - it could be indicative of re-election being of greater relative importance to him than this core promise. This affects my level of cynicism


    There, are you happy now? I'm betting not, that no level of admitted doubt less than your own will satisfy you - which should maybe be instructive for you about why people won't play that

    Nothing I know or suspect now if known in 2016 would make me any less likely to vote for him in the primary or the general. Nothing I know now would make me one iota more likely to vote for any of his likely potential challengers in 2020

    Now will you answer why this form of overt witnessing to your favored viewpoint is so important to you. Can you truly not spot the thoughtful Trumpers, or do you just doubt there are any?
    Thank you. I think there may be hope for you after all.

    Kinda wish the things you opposed were authoritarian things. Just to address some of those issues themselves, which is more interesting to me that having to ***** at you people for letting Trump get away with so much.

    1) I'm completely ambivalent on Syria. I've seen the Syrian thread and it's just not a topic I can get interested in. I seriously don't give a flying **** about Syria.

    2) I'm not a fan of BAMN. It's authoritarian **********y. I'm not a deep state conspiracy theorist, but it's quite disturbing the lengths to which it appears people within the system went to thwart Trump. They should be at least fired promptly.

    3) This is an area of deep disagreement. I don't give a **** about bump stocks. I don't own one. I don't care to own one. I'm not into novelty firearm accessories. I like practical stuff. However, my position against what Trump is doing is yet again revolving around authoritarianism. I don't like that he just tells his AG to redefine bump stocks to make them machine guns. They're a ****ing hunk of plastic. Making people criminals at the stroke of a pen is bull**** and should not be tolerated by a free society. And it's discouraging to hear so many Trumpers deny that Trump was even responsible. I don't recall if you were involved in that, but dayam. That's some crazy ****.

    4) the homo/decriminalization thing I think is another Ivanka pet issue. I care more about what we do in this country. It's fine and noble to advocate for human rights worldwide, but in the end, other countries are going to do their thing.

    5) This is something I just don't get. If Democrats tried to use this to get their way, Trumpers would be up in arms about it. I've INGO'd for quite some time now. I kinda get the drift. It's a surety. It's bankable. I don't see why, especially given the HBICOTH's warning. It's not that they haven't thought about it. I think Obama looked hard and long about what he could get away with in gun control to get around congress. But it appears he looked for things that wouldn't push the window. I doubt it's something they didn't think of. It's more like something they didn't think they could get away with. No POTUS has ever used emergency powers to bypass congress. Nearly all declarations over the last few presidencies have been sanctions. I doubt they thought they could get away with it. But Trump just doesn't give a ****. He'll do it and then see how he does in court. If that works, it would be foolish and naive to thing Democrats wouldn't use that to enact through emergency powers pieces of their Utopia. It's foolish and short-sighted. And that's why I called Trump dumb as a bag of ****.
    I have spoken.
    If you’re woke you dig it.
    My pronouns: **** off

  3. #3063
    Grandmaster Libertarian01's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Part of the problem, as I see it, has been the shift over the last 120 years of power and leadership. At the turn of the 20th century it was the congress that controlled, well, about everything. They didn't exactly "control" but they set the tone and direction for America. It was a much more stable system as we were guided by a consensus that was slow to change and wasn't subjected to the personal whims of any one president. The president back then didn't guide all that much. I'm not saying they didn't do anything, but by and large they left congress to set the tone and policy.

    Then comes WWI. We faced a global crisis and Woodrow Wilson started to take some authority and social control. He co-opted the Red Cross to censure and control people who disagreed with the war effort. He was like the first minny McCarthy as anyone who was against the war was both persecuted and prosecuted.

    Then comes the great depression and WWII. FDR gave his weekly fireside addresses and people shifted looking to congress and looked to him instead. From there it was all downhill. The president jumped into the drivers seat and congress willingly got in the back seat. As time has passed congress has been granting the presidential office more and more power, maybe because it allows them to dodge the hard issues and blame him for all the problems. I don't know?

    Now we come to this 1976 law where "emergency" is only a word that has no legal meaning. So my thinking is simply this: if SCOTUS determines that law to be valid then Trump wins, simply because he is operating within the law, period.

    In my opinion we have allowed too much power to be given to the president. The president can sign executive agreements with foreign nations that have equal power to a treaty, just so they can be kept secret. This completely bypasses the founding fathers intention of a check on the presidents power by having the senate review international treaties. We allow the president to lob ordnance into foreign nations without a formal declaration of war, because it is easy and avoids a debate on what our true policy should be.

    I want to see the power of the president radically curtailed. However, I do NOT want to see it done in a vindictive or malicious way. In other words, I don't want Pelosi trying to gut Trumps power just as I wouldn't want the republicans to gut Hillaries power had she been elected. It should not be done because congress doesn't like the person in the office, but rather because the office itself needs to be put back on a leash.

    I do not believe this will happen. Power, once given, is hard to take back. But I wish it would happen.

    Regards,

    Doug
    Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate: "To every man upon this earth, Death cometh soon or late.
    And how can a man die better, Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?" - T.B. Macaulay

    "Idiocracy wasn't a movie. It was prophecy." - CathyInBlue

    "Agent Mulder, every life, every day, is in danger. That's just life." - W. Skinner, X-Files S2E8


  4. #3064
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fnpfan View Post
    you go back to the cost of the wall, simple math will tell you that if you stop paying the way for illegal invaders by giving them free medical care, free food, free or discounted housing.. the wall would pay for itself in no time, and again I will mention...obama declared an emergency 13 times.. so did he abuse power 13 times or is it only because it is Trump? and you debate the effectiveness of walls? do you have 4? do they keep people from strolling through your living room? do people walk in and help themselves to your money? I would like to argue the effectiveness of walls.. walls plus security will equal a significant amount of decreased illegal entries..to argue that fact is ...well

    The wall won't pay back the cost I'm most interested in. It won't cover the cost of the unintended consequences of abusing emergency powers.

    And about Obama's 13 uses of emergency powers. Did you even read my last post about that? NONE of those declared emergencies were to bypass congress. NONE of them were controversial. ALL OF THEM except the H1N1 influenza pandemic were sanctions against foreign governments or foreign groups. Now, before you start thinking I'm a fan of Obama, please understand that I'm not a fan of Obama or his husband Michelle. But reality needs defending. He did not exploit this power to bypass congress. This is new and dangerous ground for uses of emergency powers.
    I have spoken.
    If you’re woke you dig it.
    My pronouns: **** off

  5. #3065
    Master Brad69's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    So help me understand things here this dude in CALIFORNIA had previously been deported SIX times, had a long rap sheet ect. Local police didn’t alert ICE due to sanctuary laws. Self deprecation is a mental illness!

    BTW
    You guys are really getting into the weeds on several issues.

    1. We have to stop the flood from Central America

    2. President Trump did everything humanly possible including a government shutdown to do this the way it was supposed to be done.

    3. The legal battle may take the remainder of President Trumps time in office.

    4. If you think this is dangerous now think about if President Tump loses the next election.
    Harris and Warren have already spoke in favor of reparations for minority’s that combined with the money that could be wasted on climate change, paid time off, basic income ect. This combined with “Open Borders” will make for some interesting conversation.
    U.S. Army retired

  6. #3066
    Expert SheepDog4Life's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by SheepDog4Life View Post
    Fox News:Man who shot at California cop previously deported, arrested but cops wouldn't honor ICE detainer, feds say
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-who-s...ainer-feds-say

    Illegal alien.

    "Bad hombre."

    Protected by California sanctuary policies.

    Tried to murder a patrol officer at traffic stop.
    Seen on Facebook: “Love trumping hate involves a lot more assault and arson than I thought it would”

    "I believe in a system of Love and Karma, but, to counterbalance that, if it fails, I'm buying an AK-47..." - Unidentified Californian on Fox News following Antifa protests fascist riots

  7. #3067
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fnpfan View Post
    you go back to the cost of the wall, simple math will tell you that if you stop paying the way for illegal invaders by giving them free medical care, free food, free or discounted housing.. the wall would pay for itself in no time, and again I will mention...obama declared an emergency 13 times.. so did he abuse power 13 times or is it only because it is Trump? and you debate the effectiveness of walls? do you have 4? do they keep people from strolling through your living room? do people walk in and help themselves to your money? I would like to argue the effectiveness of walls.. walls plus security will equal a significant amount of decreased illegal entries..to argue that fact is ...well
    Oh. And I forgot to address MY 4 walls. If thousands of immigrants per day were highly motivated to get on the other side of my 4 walls, my 4 walls would be completely ineffective to stop them. So would yours. Of course a wall at the border would be scaled to such a purpose, but, it's still a facile point to compare your walls or walls in general to the potential effectiveness of walls at the border. I'm not disputing that walls can be effective in deterring people from getting to the other side if scaled properly for the use. There's a law of diminishing returns though.

    I've only disputed that walls are 100% effective or 0%. It's some unknown quantity in between. Some people will still come to the US illegally over or under the border. Undoubtedly a wall will make that more difficult. But that number is unknown. So to T.Lex's point, if you don't know the numerator, or the denominator, you really can't do much more than an educated guess. Doesn't look to me like people are looking for the educated part of the guess. The ideologically driven people on both sides appear to derive estimates based on whether they want the wall or not. So it's reasonable to suspect that ardent open borders people and the ardent Trumpers are looking for the guess that most quickly relieves the cognitive dissonance.
    I have spoken.
    If you’re woke you dig it.
    My pronouns: **** off

  8. #3068
    Marksman fnpfan's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jamil View Post
    The wall won't pay back the cost I'm most interested in. It won't cover the cost of the unintended consequences of abusing emergency powers.

    And about Obama's 13 uses of emergency powers. Did you even read my last post about that? NONE of those declared emergencies were to bypass congress. NONE of them were controversial. ALL OF THEM except the H1N1 influenza pandemic were sanctions against foreign governments or foreign groups. Now, before you start thinking I'm a fan of Obama, please understand that I'm not a fan of Obama or his husband Michelle. But reality needs defending. He did not exploit this power to bypass congress. This is new and dangerous ground for uses of emergency powers.
    The abuse of power has been going on for years, we would not have the illegal alien issue we do had powers not been abused, Trump is just doing what he can to try and bail out a sinking ship, I for one am not interested in passing down a 3rd world country to my children.. slowing down the flow of illegals is a good step towards that goal, and you are right..it will not 100% stop the flow of invaders, but it will stop ones that would otherwise walk right over, drop a baby and live off our tax dollars, all while having no respect for the hand that feeds

  9. #3069
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertarian01 View Post
    Part of the problem, as I see it, has been the shift over the last 120 years of power and leadership. At the turn of the 20th century it was the congress that controlled, well, about everything. They didn't exactly "control" but they set the tone and direction for America. It was a much more stable system as we were guided by a consensus that was slow to change and wasn't subjected to the personal whims of any one president. The president back then didn't guide all that much. I'm not saying they didn't do anything, but by and large they left congress to set the tone and policy.

    Then comes WWI. We faced a global crisis and Woodrow Wilson started to take some authority and social control. He co-opted the Red Cross to censure and control people who disagreed with the war effort. He was like the first minny McCarthy as anyone who was against the war was both persecuted and prosecuted.

    Then comes the great depression and WWII. FDR gave his weekly fireside addresses and people shifted looking to congress and looked to him instead. From there it was all downhill. The president jumped into the drivers seat and congress willingly got in the back seat. As time has passed congress has been granting the presidential office more and more power, maybe because it allows them to dodge the hard issues and blame him for all the problems. I don't know?

    Now we come to this 1976 law where "emergency" is only a word that has no legal meaning. So my thinking is simply this: if SCOTUS determines that law to be valid then Trump wins, simply because he is operating within the law, period.

    In my opinion we have allowed too much power to be given to the president. The president can sign executive agreements with foreign nations that have equal power to a treaty, just so they can be kept secret. This completely bypasses the founding fathers intention of a check on the presidents power by having the senate review international treaties. We allow the president to lob ordnance into foreign nations without a formal declaration of war, because it is easy and avoids a debate on what our true policy should be.

    I want to see the power of the president radically curtailed. However, I do NOT want to see it done in a vindictive or malicious way. In other words, I don't want Pelosi trying to gut Trumps power just as I wouldn't want the republicans to gut Hillaries power had she been elected. It should not be done because congress doesn't like the person in the office, but rather because the office itself needs to be put back on a leash.

    I do not believe this will happen. Power, once given, is hard to take back. But I wish it would happen.

    Regards,

    Doug
    Agreed. Except I'd just add that the emergency powers has been used for uncontroversial purposes up until this point. I think presidents did not want to be seen abusing the power. It would distroy their legacy, or perception of them as leaders. You get a president who doesn't give a **** about precedent and how other president's have used emergency powers and you'll have one that just decides to abuse it and take his chances. And his ardent supporters are okay with that because it gets them what they want. And given the conversations here, no one believes it'll be used against them. Now Democrats will have the cover of, well, the Republicans did it.

    Probably the best way to solve it so that we dont' have to worry about the weaponization of "emergency" in the culture war would be for congress to change the law to define more clearly what an emergency is and limit the scope further for how a president can use it.
    I have spoken.
    If you’re woke you dig it.
    My pronouns: **** off

  10. #3070
    Grandmaster Route 45's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fnpfan View Post
    The abuse of power has been going on for years, we would not have the illegal alien issue we do had powers not been abused, Trump is just doing what he can to try and bail out a sinking ship, I for one am not interested in passing down a 3rd world country to my children.. slowing down the flow of illegals is a good step towards that goal, and you are right..it will not 100% stop the flow of invaders, but it will stop ones that would otherwise walk right over, drop a baby and live off our tax dollars, all while having no respect for the hand that feeds
    I read on INGO that the problem is mostly visa overstays. I'm sure that this illegal who was deported several times and tried to murder a police officer was just a visa overstay. #wallsdontwork

    My guns won't be illegal....they'll be undocumented.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge