- Nov 24th: Obama administration swears in new USNCB (Interpol WA) Director Justice.gov
- Dec 7th: Executive branch's EPA declares greenhouse gasses harmful to humans and subject to regulation ABC
- Dec 9th: In an unprecedented way, Executive Branch pushes for legislation when this White House statement is released: "If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."
- Dec 9th: U.S. National Central Bureau (INTERPOL Washington) hosts its FIRST U.S. Interagency Environmental Crime Meeting USDOJ.GOV"Environmental crime is any breach of a national or international environmental law or treaty that exists to ensure the conservation and sustainability of the world’s environment"...."Topics of discussion at today’s event will focus on INTERPOL’s activity in the support of laws associated with wildlife, pollution, forestry, fisheries, natural resources, water, protected areas, bio-security, and climate change and ways INTERPOL’s Environmental Crime Program assists its member countries in the effective enforcement of environmental laws."
- Dec 16th. Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425 by granting immunity to INTERPOL Whitehouse.gov and Refuses Explanation
- Dec 18th. Obama Addresses Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.
The Executive Branch sure has been busy lately.
[ January 05, 2010, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dec 1: U.S. golfer Tiger Woods announces that he will not be attending his own charity golf tournament, the Chevron World Challenge, or any other tournaments in 2009.
Dec 23: Afghan senator Mohammad Younus and his son/driver are fatally shot by police in Puli Khumri, Baghlan Province.
Dec 31: Patrick Stewart, the actor who played Captain Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation and Professor X in X-Men, is knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
Jan 1st: China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) launch a Free Trade Area.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
yep,
a series of unrelated events.
Maybe Obama was on Air Force One on his way to Copenhagen when he signed the executive order granting immunity from US law to INTERPOL while Interpol was having their first ever US Interagency Environmental Crime Meeting to enforce any breach of national or international law or treaty concerning climate change. A couple weeks after Obama replaced the head of Interpol US, of course. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm sure no one would dispute the fact that even the president isn't above the law. His executive order made someone who is answerable to him, above the law.
There are no Interpol agents. There are no interpol police, only police under the interpol banner. From their own website:
"Are there INTERPOL agents? INTERPOL does not have its own operational agents, but rather utilizes the services of the police and law enforcement authorities in each of its 186 member countries."
Immunity has been granted to your local police so long as they are operating under the interpol banner. In another post I shared my story of this legal maneuvering. I was Navy but boarded boats under a coast guard flag. Only the coast guard could legally do what we did. The Captain of our navy vessel temporarily turned over command to a coast guard officer to remain within international law. A USN destroyer with 300 Navy Sailors and 2 Coast guard officers....perfectly legal. For a few hours, I wasn't in the navy, I was in the coast guard. Your local police officer can be an interpol officer just as I was a coast guard sailor.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:His executive order made someone who is answerable to him, above the law.
Mal, do you really not understand what this Order does? I ask this because several people have told you the facts of the matter, but you have not once acknowledged their corrections and continue to appear misinformed.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Here's a nice shot of Eric Holder Swearing in the Director of INTERPOL-United States National Central Bureau (USNCB) http://www.justice.gov/usncb/ True, Obama and Holder don't have political immunity. Obama and Holder aren't immune from the Freedom Of Information Act but USNCB is. The director of USNCB answers to them. Talk about plausible deniability.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Dec 31: Patrick Stewart, the actor who played Captain Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation and Professor X in X-Men, is knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
Hey, I missed hearing about that. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Are you all about to do the old tactic of talking nonsense to bury a post you can't rebut with facts? I've seen it on many a Hatrack post..the gang decides to debate their favorite flavor of ice cream to bury a post. Are you surprised Obama is a one world government leader?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You've been rebutted numerous times. People are discussing other things because they're bored with you ignoring posts dissecting your position.
The Interpol order normalized the privileges given to Interpol to be like other international organizations, such as the World Tourism Organization. Almost all the parts of their immunity that you rail against were granted by Reagan, not Obama, and none of those parts makes any American citizen immune to prosecution for violating US laws. Stop lying about it.
Yes, Obama is interested in more work to protect the environment and combat climate change. He has made no secret of that. Why do you think it is surprising that his whitehouse works to accomplish goals the President has?
The EPA reclassification was entirely legal. Do you have some complaint about it?
As for Interpol's meeting, are you for people violating laws? They've picked an area of law of particular interest nowadays, with many violators, and met to discuss how to deal with things.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Numerous times? We're still on page 1 of this post.
The EPA is a wing of the executive branch. What they did was legal. What they did was unprecedented but the whim of their boss, Obama. If McCain were president, they wouldn't have made that announcement. Obama is exercising his power through the executive branches. The EPA has been there for decades but only decided this after Obama appointed a New Orleans Community Organizer to be a head of it. A woman who encourages green jobs for the redistribution of wealth. Green is the new red.
The World Tourism Organization doesn't have legal policing authority over me. The immuninites Reagan granted them were equal to our police and FBI. Reagan did grant them partial immunity like other international organizations. He specifically exempted from that immunity taxes, search and seizure and prosecution. Essentially, he limited Interpol to the same constraints as any US Law Enforcement Ofganization. Obama exempted them from search, seizure, prosecution, lawsuit, etc. Reagan did give them access with limitation...Obama gave them complete immunity while pushing for them to have more power. IE Copenhagen. If the US signs on to an international green treaty, INTERPOL has enforcement power and immunity from search of records and prosecution. An immunity even our own law enforcement agencies have never enjoyed.
[ January 05, 2010, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Unprecedented in decades? The EPA adds harmful substances to their list fairly regularly. What makes it unprecedented? Is it unprecedented for you to dislike their decision? Well, probably, since I doubt you paid any attention to them until it was a political rallying cry for you.
Interpol doesn't have policing authority over you either. It does not have police power in any situation. If an interpol officer 'arrests' you, it is abduction, just like it is abduction if a member of the World Tourism Organization 'arrests' you. None of the immunities granted to Interpol the organization are granted to members acting outside of their remit.
Prove that Interpol has "policing authority" over me. Provide the law that gives it to them. Ditto this "enforcement power" you say they have.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Unprecedented in decades? The EPA adds harmful substances to their list fairly regularly. What makes it unprecedented? Is it unprecedented for you to dislike their decision? Well, probably, since I doubt you paid any attention to them until it was a political rallying cry for you.
*snort* That was fairly awesome fugu13.
----
In other news, I did have a delicious mango tart flavored frozen yogurt yesterday, with semi-sweet chocolate chips. It was quite tasty and competitively priced! $0.30/oz to be precise.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Um,...yes completely unprecedented. The head of the EPA is appointed by the president of the US. In the entire history of the EPA, they have never decided to regulate "green house gasses" they were established to regulate pollution. It is unprecedented for them to deem what a mammal exhales or farts to be a pollutant. If the president doesn't agree with the head of the EPA, he's gone. If McCain were president, farts and exhilations wouldn't be considered pollution...methane...C02. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where the government regulates my farts and breath. EPA is not independent...Obama appointed a greeny/communist/community organizer.
The green movement is the new communist movement. Van Jones left the Communist Party to become an environmental activist. Green is the new red.
What's wrong with the Communist Party?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, unprecedented in the sense of "this is the first time they did it wrong, and by wrong I mean something I don't like".
You're also factually wrong. You can take a look at the list here: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html . Several of them are generated by natural human activity. For instance, Methanol is another thing we breathe out in exhalations (that is generated internally when our cells work anaerobically).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What's wrong with the Communist Party?
Poor drink selection on top of no good dance music.
Hobbes Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What's wrong with the Communist Party?
Poor drink selection on top of no good dance music.
quote:It is unprecedented for them to deem what a mammal exhales or farts to be a pollutant.
Speaking as someone whose wife has spent the last decade doing dairy forage research, I can tell you that you are definitively wrong on this point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, because ignoring direct questions or refutations about and to your far-right conservative spiel isn't a trademark of yours on this forum. Nope. Ask anybody! Folks will be baffled anyone associates you with behavior like that.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In other news, I did have a delicious mango tart flavored frozen yogurt yesterday...
The fact that I saw an "f" instead of a "t" in the word "tart" means I should go home and get some sleep...
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Dec 31: Patrick Stewart, the actor who played Captain Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation and Professor X in X-Men, is knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
Did this have to do with his playing Claudius with the Royal Shakespeare Company last year? I'm still bummed I missed that.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
There's a dvd you can order on the RSC website. The BBC made a televised version. It's not exactly the same as on a live stage, but it's darned good still. I can't wait for mine to arrive!
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In other news, I did have a delicious mango tart flavored frozen yogurt yesterday...
The fact that I saw an "f" instead of a "t" in the word "tart" means I should go home and get some sleep...
I don't get it... what's a "tarf"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A typo for a Klingon pet.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*giggle*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're following me, aren't you?
*waves*
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The supreme court made the right decision concerning the EPA. The supreme court ruled that the EPA must enforce laws it was created to enforce. The supreme court didn't order the EPA to regulate "green house" gasses, it ordered that the EPA must do what it was founded to do...protect people from pollutants. They said that if the EPA decided that green house gasses were a danger to people, then the EPA must do its legal duty and regulate them. The supreme court did not make a global warming decision, it simply clarified the legal duties of the EPA. The EPA director is appointed by the executive branch. The EPA Director declared farts and exhilations to be a danger to humanity. Not on the basis of pollution but climate change. Obama being the chief executive could order the EPA to retract,...the EPA works for him. It isn't law but regulation. They want law, hence the threat to congress I mentioned earlier. The ironic thing is the Executive Branch via EPA is in no position to blackmail the congress to pass a law. Congress could pass legislation that the EPA shall not regulate so called green house gasses.
If you are on the left you had better hope they pass the legislation now. Even the Senate Majority Leader has announced he isn't going to run again. The socialist/marxist/enviro-nazi's have 10 months to do what they want. The left will lose the congress in 2010 and the presidency in 2012. No president on record has had this low an approval rating within his first year in office.
Is CSPAN covering the debates? The most open and ethical government ever, hah. Almost every one I know who voted Obama regrets it today. Not seeing too many Obama bumper stickers anymore. Sulk out in the middle of the night and scrape off that humiliating stamp. Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy and you fell for a politicians empty promises.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, have it pointed out your "facts" are nonsense, and just start ranting. Ah well, I knew it wasn't worth it.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
First, .
Second,
quote:No president on record has had this low an approval rating within his first year in office.
If you want to equate Obama with Reagan...Reagan was reelected and Obama's policies are the polar opposite of Reagan's. What got Reagan reelected was a low tax free market policy. In fact, Reagan followed Carter....Obama is Carter Redux. Rasmussen is historically the most accurate polling organization. According to Rasmussen, Obama has the lowest first year. If Obama cared about jobs and the economy, he would cut taxes.
Obama's promises:
- CSPAN for healthcare debate. - Close GITMO - Get out of Iraq - Unemployment below 8% if we pass stimulus - No more lobbyists and special interests
We're still in Iraq. Stimulus passed and we have >10% unemployment. Gitmo is still open. The current healthcare debate is completely behind closed doors. He increased troop levels. Obama's administration is full of lobbyists and special interests, especially unions. The healthcare bill panders to drug companies and the "evil" insurers. We have an administration that wants to make it a federal law to purchase insurance from these evil insurance companies. They do not care about reality or true reform, all they care about is a bill, despite its contents. Obama doesn't care about healthcare, he cares about reelection. A bad healthcare bill is better than none at all, at least he can run for reelection on the basis of passing healthcare reform. Lets be honest. One side wants free market, the other want single payer. Are the single payer proponents happy? Both sides know this is a pile of crap for their position but it doesn't matter because 51% of American's can't even name the VP. When the next election comes, they'll hear that Obama passed healthcare reform. Since he "reformed" the system, he must have made it better. You on the left should be more outraged than I. He's going to pass a law that all people must pay the evil insurance companies for services they may not want. I'd rather have your single payer system....everyone paying the government for healthcare is better than this special interest deal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You on the left should be more outraged than I.
I'm not even particularly leftist, but I'm pretty sure I am more outraged than you are. At least about actual events.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Actual events?
2009 most deaths ever in the war in Afghanistan. 2009 most brazen Iran activity. 2009 most brazen North Korean activity. 2009 most domestic acts of terrorism ever. 2009 highest forclosure rate since the great dep. 2009 unprecedented job losses in the US.
2009 Obama won nobel peace prize 2009 Obama increased troop levels by 30k
2009 The year Obama instantly judged a police officer but took 3 days to speak about a terrorist. 2009 The year we forgot the 911 commission report and reverted to treating terrorists as criminals.
2010 The year Americans realize strong leaders are more important than good speakers.
Our enemies respect a cowboy more than a peace prize winner. Our nation will see the fruits of Obama's "historic" Cairo speech. This panzy has put our nation in danger. Our enemy will not stop until the entire world is a theocracy of Sharia law. This pussy in power only emboldens them.
Who is going to stop them?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Heh. That you're worried about Sharia law only makes my point for me, mal. Feel free to join me in outrage about real things at some point. The water's fine.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I understand you think it is laughable. A minor tumor in the breast of woman is laughable as well. How could that minor tumor spread enough to overtake the body? Only the paranoid could imagine a cluster of cells spreading and overtaking the body.
Being a democratic mindset person, I understand the skeptisism...Sharia mindset people will never be a democratic majority. If 5% of your population supports jihad, the 95% will live in terror. Iran is not ruled by the majority, it is ruled by a sharia minority. 1% police following Sharia can subdue the other 99%.....to a point. We had a great opportunity to help Iran in 2009,...unfortunately Obama took the wrong side. Just as he did with the countries of Georgia and Honduras.
His knee jerk reaction is to take the side of the statist/communist/tyrant. Hell, his czars praise Chavez, Che, Castro and Mao, what should we expect.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Any overt help to Iran this year would have killed their Green Revolution, led to the deaths of hundreds more people and likely would have potentially validated (or at least provided a veneer of rhetorical validation) to enemies of ours in the Islamic world.
-Bok
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The only "overt" help Obama provided was to declare their election free and democratic. He overtly supported the result. His silence would've been better. Even better, evil CIA support to the opposition. Instead Obama validated their BS election and thousands are dead and/or in prison. If we are to maintain the high ground, taking no position is preferable. He did take a position in Georgia, Honduras and Iran. He didn't remain neutral and remain silent...he supported the tyrant.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, he said he was "deeply disturbed". He also said:
We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran[.]"
In other words, we're pissed but we don't want the government to use us (the U.S.A) as a scapegoat. Oh, and we've blown way too much cash on two wars and can't really afford a third front.
Although I could understand if one were unfamiliar with subtle diplomacy given our country's recent past. This type of talk used to be common, from both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(fourth front if you count Yemen or Pakistan)
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: There's a dvd you can order on the RSC website. The BBC made a televised version. It's not exactly the same as on a live stage, but it's darned good still. I can't wait for mine to arrive!
Oooohhhh... <checks website>
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Our enemies respect a cowboy more than a peace prize winner. Our nation will see the fruits of Obama's "historic" Cairo speech. This panzy has put our nation in danger. Our enemy will not stop until the entire world is a theocracy of Sharia law. This pussy in power only emboldens them.
Our enemies don't 'respect' any American leader, certainly not in the sense you mean: respect as in fear to cross. Malanthrop, Osama bin Laden (just as the biggest, most infamous example) made his bones fighting the freakin' Soviet Union. Now, surely even you would have to agree that if you want to dumb down foreign policy to a comparison between cowboys and pansies, the USSR weren't pansies.
And yet, somehow, Osama bin Laden wasn't cowed. Somehow, naked force didn't work. Someone who wasn't a far-right wingnut hack might look at that historical example and wonder if perhaps, if maybe just maybe, relying overwhelmingly on force when considering how to deal with a militant fanatic might not be the most effective approach.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal, you make some interesting points. Mind if I take a moment to look at them? I mean, if all you really want to do is spout unproved points until we surrender to bluster, I won't waste my time, but if you want to discuss these things, I will try.
In fact, you remind me a lot of Iran and North Korea. You complain that nobody takes your discussions seriously, then you ignore, attack or dis anybody who does discuss things, as if you see discussion as a sign of weakness.
2009 most deaths ever in the war in Afghanistan: Yes. After 8 years of Republican Cowboy diplomacy that considered Afghanistan good enough and ignored it to fester, we've had a bad year. This is the war President Bush, your favorite Cowboy President, wanted to do on the "cheap".
2009 most brazen Iran activity: Really? I thought the year the took over the US Embassy and held American hostages was more brazen.
Or their was their invasion of Iraq. That was really brazen.
In 2009 they pushed for Nuclear weapons and launched ever more powerful missiles. While that is very disturbing, your use of "most Brazen" diminishes your argument and makes you appear alarmist.
2009 most brazen North Korean activity.
Again--Invasion of South Korea after WWII, a bit more brazen.
Selling Nuclear Tech to all buyers during the previous decades--a bit more brazen.
Still, they launched missiles. Nope, still can't see this as the most brazen, or even the top 10.
2009 most domestic acts of terrorism ever. I'd like to see counts on that. We didn't have a couple of guys in Washington DC sniping at random drivers. We didn't have McVeigh. Where is this number coming from?
2009 highest foreclosure rate since the great dep. Actually, that would be 2008. Foreclosures were higher the end of last year.
2009 unprecedented job losses in the US. 10% is less than the Great Depression. So their is a precedent. While its bad, its not as bad as you make it sound, so you sound like an alarmist who should be ignored.
2009 Obama won nobel peace prize. That is a good thing as most people are concerned. Further, its not as if he ran for Peace Prize Winner, or did anything special just so that he could win it.
2009 Obama increased troop levels by 30k. He did a lot more than that. The 30K was only after a spring rise as well. But that is only in Afghanistan. He lowered them in Iraq.
2009 The year Obama instantly judged a police officer but took 3 days to speak about a terrorist.
The police officer thing was off the top of his head on something he was not involved with, like me talking about a crime somewhere else. The terrorist thing was his responsibility. You make it sound like he waited to determine the guilt of the terrorist. He was waiting to find out how he got the bomb on the plane. Not the same thing at all.
2009 The year we forgot the 911 commission report and reverted to treating terrorists as criminals. This is a false dichotomy. The 911 Report did not say we had to treat terrorism like war. Where did you get that idea?
2010 The year Americans realize strong leaders are more important than good speakers. Another interesting dichotomy. This claims that President Obama is only a good speaker, and weak and that is his big difference than our previous leader. There is also a reliance on facts over faith and the virtue of competence over President Bush's main loved virtue of loyalty. What you see as a man who talks nice but is weak, I see as a man who would rather do the right thing than respond with random violence.
quote:Our enemies respect a cowboy more than a peace prize winner.
Didn't you just criticize the President for sending more troops to Afghanistan? I've seen lots of polls, but not one showed respect for our previous Cowboy.
quote: Our nation will see the fruits of Obama's "historic" Cairo speech. This panzy has put our nation in danger.
No evidence for this, just your fear. Are you really so afraid of the terrorists that you would deny even a chance for peace with any arab for fear that they will somehow force you into subservience?
quote: Our enemy will not stop until the entire world is a theocracy of Sharia law.
Which enemy is that? North Korea has no desire for Sharia law, or do you not consider them a US enemy? Castro? A good Communist Shia law? Or how about the other Communists out there? The drug cartels in Mexico?
You label one group as "our enemy" which is far more of a liberty than anyone elected president can take.
quote:This pussy in power only emboldens them.
Please refrain from vulgarity on Hatrack.
By Pussy, do you mean womanly man? Are you being a bit sexist in saying that woman can't be tough? Or are you, by calling the most powerful man on the planet a "pansy" trying to be degrading to homosexuals?
Did you perhaps mean pussy cat, and just forgot the cat? Or were you after the term whimp, but wanted to go the extra bit by insulting the man as well. The insult makes you lose credibility I am afraid.
quote:Who is going to stop them?
Our brave men and women in uniform--straight and gay. Our police, our security people, and as was proven on Christmas eve, in the worst case scenario, our citizens will stand up and stop them.
One thing they won't do? Cower in fear because somebody starts shouting and extolling all the reasons we've lost and we should run in fear.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: our citizens will stand up and stop them.
Wasn't it a Dutch filmmaker that acted?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I really like Daquiri sorbets.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I understand you think it is laughable. A minor tumor in the breast of woman is laughable as well.
:SNORT: Did anyone else see this and get a weird image of a non-specific foreigner with a nasal voice, wearing an armani suit and holding a nickel plated revolver casually at some action hero?
Mal, honestly, it's absurd. Funny, sort of, but really absurd.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I understand you think it is laughable. A minor tumor in the breast of woman is laughable as well.
:SNORT: Did anyone else see this and get a weird image of a non-specific foreigner with a nasal voice, wearing an armani suit and holding a nickel plated revolver casually at some action hero?
Mal, honestly, it's absurd. Funny, sort of, but really absurd.
Obsurd? ONE illiterate primitive from Nigeria has our entire country bound in knots this week. This is one person....there are over 300 million Americans. One person straps explosives in his underwear and the entire nation is afraid. Also this week, one guy sneaks past TSA to give a kiss to his girl....the airport delays all flights for 11 hours and sends thousands of passengers out of the airport into 15 degree weather.
Yeah, I'm crazy to think that an extreme minority could devastate a nation. If one half of one percent of your town decided to drop backpack bombs in public, your entire town would be on fire.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To be fair, I live in metro Detroit, I see planes overhead all the time, and could thus be the victim of a theoretical crashing play that's in a landing pattern at Detroit Metro Airport. And I'm not afraid at all. I wasn't when the story first broke, I wasn't during any of the hours and hours and hours of local and national coverage. And I'm not now.
Security is going to do the best that they can do, and after that, it might as well be an act of God for all the good worrying will do about it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: ONE privileged and educated son of a Nigerian banker has our entire country bound in knots this week.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not afraid either because the individual has decided to step up and keep us safe. An individual on that aircraft climbed over seats, stripped the pants off the terrorist, burning his hands, put the terrorist in a choke hold and saved lives. Rely on the government, count on an air marshal and that plane would've crashed into your neighborhood. After the shoe bomber, all Americans must take their shoes off...will we be dropping our drawers now? This is the point of terrorism...Americans will suffer and lose liberty/privacy due to this one attempt. There will be more attempts and our government will respond by punishing the American people. Maybe there will be an attack on the super bowl....and from here on forth all American's will have to take off their shoes to enter a sports game. Then they'll detonate a bomb on a bus, train or in a mall. Then we'll have to go through TSA style screenings to enter the mall. We argue about pilots carrying guns,...all law abiding Americans should be able to carry guns anywhere they want. We don't need Air Marshals. A law abiding citizen is just as good...even better. Profile them and let the "militia" protect America. The militia is an armed civilian populace. There are more armed robberies in cities with gun bans. Political correctness will be our downfall.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal, why do you call him a primitive?
Interesting word.
Some might consider it racist, or Eurocentric. I mean, if you are calling him primitive because he straps explosives to his underwear, that is understandable. If you call him primitive because he's from Nigeria, that is just, well, really narrow minded of you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One person straps explosives in his underwear and the entire nation is afraid.
I'd just like to state, for the record, that I am not afraid.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
He's a primitive because he's willing to kill himself for a primitive belief system. Early Americans were off base referring to Native Americans as "savages"....these people are savages. They love death. Anyone willing to kill himself in order to kill hundreds of innocents is a primitive savage.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:One person straps explosives in his underwear and the entire nation is afraid.
I'd just like to state, for the record, that I am not afraid.
The individual doesn't matter anymore...the nation is afraid. At least according to the government. Get ready to drop trow before getting on a plane. This government will strip search an elderly American woman before singling out a 16-30 year old Muslim male named Muhammed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: He's a primitive because he's willing to kill himself for a primitive belief system. Early Americans were off base referring to Native Americans as "savages"....these people are savages. They love death. Anyone willing to kill himself in order to kill hundreds of innocents is a primitive savage.
This is racist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: He's a primitive because he's willing to kill himself for a primitive belief system. Early Americans were off base referring to Native Americans as "savages"....these people are savages. They love death. Anyone willing to kill himself in order to kill hundreds of innocents is a primitive savage.
And letting fear govern our response to a person willing to give their life to kill hundreds of innocents is just as primitive.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Um,
Take a look at the pictures of the primitive savages I'm referring to. You may be hypersensitive since the most recent picture looks like your everyday black guy but they are white, brown, asian and black. It's a religious war. I know PC prevents our government from admitting we are in the midst of a religious war...even though the most recent attempt happened on the day we celebrate the birth of Christ. The 25th of December is just another day...no significance to the PC head in the sand Progressive.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:a has our entire country bound in knots this week. This is one person....there are over 300 million Americans.
quote:The individual doesn't matter anymore...the nation is afraid. At least according to the government.
One minute you are saying that 300 million individuals are afraid, and the next you are saying that its the government that's afraid, not us. Make up your mind please, we can't make sense of your arguments when they contradict each other.
And where do you get the idea that the government will search an elderly American woman before singling out a 15-30 year old Muslim male named Muhammed? 1) No one is talking strip searches, 2) Scanners will work on everyone, not just old women. 3) Why do you seperate American woman and Muslim males? There are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Males who are also Americans. Did you mean that we'd strip search little old White Women before bothering dangerous Dark-skinned men? 4) Up until two weeks ago, Nigeria was not considered a haven of terrorists, and the darker skin of the Nigerians would have kept them out of most Arab Terrorist racial profiling. So using your prerequisite search profile, he would have been let on the plane with a smile, as would have the shoe-bomber and the last couple of Al-Queda bombers, since they were not 16-30 year old Muslim men.
In fact, Al-Queda is one of the most racist organizations in the world. Their was an article a few years ago about how they paid their people based on country of origin, because they had limited faith in what non-Arabs could actually do.
They don't believe that the west won't do racial profiling in their defenses. So they are actively searching for Non-Arab non-Male and non-young men suicide bombers to be their bombers. Your desire to humiliate all Arabs, and dark skinned possibly Arab young men because of their religious beliefs may allow you some sense of justice and revenge for the atrocities of the few, but it certainly won't make us any safer.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: He's a primitive because he's willing to kill himself for a primitive belief system. Early Americans were off base referring to Native Americans as "savages"....these people are savages. They love death. Anyone willing to kill himself in order to kill hundreds of innocents is a primitive savage.
And letting fear govern our response to a person willing to give their life to kill hundreds of innocents is just as primitive.
Will the response be "ours"? The government would rather have everyone drop their drawers than "profile". TSA will frisk the eighty year old woman from Minnesota because they must treat her the same as Muhammed from Yemen or they'll be accused of racism and sued by CAIR and the ACLU.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Um,
Take a look at the pictures of the primitive savages I'm referring to. You may be hypersensitive since the most recent picture looks like your everyday black guy but they are white, brown, asian and black. It's a religious war. I know PC prevents our government from admitting we are in the midst of a religious war...even though the most recent attempt happened on the day we celebrate the birth of Christ. The 25th of December is just another day...no significance to the PC head in the sand Progressive.
In fairness...December 25th IS just another day. Jesus was born in the Spring.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
All Christians know Jesus wasn't born on the 25th but that is the day his birth is celebrated. Only Easter is arguably a holier day for Christians. If we attacked them on their holiest day, the day would be recognized. Truthfully, we would probably hold off bombing until the next day out of sensitivity. We can't even admit their attack had anything to do with religion. If we knew Bin Laden was hiding in a Mosque, we wouldn't bomb him. Political Correctness is more powerful than reinforced concrete. They actively target the holy places of other religions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Um,
Take a look at the pictures of the primitive savages I'm referring to. You may be hypersensitive since the most recent picture looks like your everyday black guy but they are white, brown, asian and black. It's a religious war. I know PC prevents our government from admitting we are in the midst of a religious war...even though the most recent attempt happened on the day we celebrate the birth of Christ. The 25th of December is just another day...no significance to the PC head in the sand Progressive.
Yes, go ahead and say that avoiding generalizations is "being PC" and therefore too cowardly to admit the truth. Go ahead and pretend that people's feelings don't matter so long as you go to sleep safe at night. Go ahead and tell a Latina that it's OK that she is pulled over several times a week and asked to present some proof of citizenship. Go ahead and tell the police that it's OK to hassle blacks for being in a White suburb. Lets force Sikhs to remove their turbans, because they could hide weapons in them, and well shoot they look kinda like a-rabs don't they? It's the same damn logic that caused us to lock up the Japanese during WWII. The same idiocy that have caused people to think, "The only good Injun, Gook, Wetback, Yid, Commie, Papist, Wasp, Mormon, Nigger, Rebel, Torie, is a dead one.
This is most certainly not a religious war. The Muslims involved are killing other Muslims, they are killing Christians, they are killing atheists, they have probably killed somebody from every race, religion, and country. Their brand of Islam is repulsive to many other Muslims who have no aspirations for world domination.
But go ahead, lets pretend that the definition of "A good American" has remained static all these years, and yet keep our eyes on those who don't fit our ever changing criteria. After all, it's convenient for us to put up road blocks for everybody else that aren't like us.
Somebody else's liberty for my peace of mind, what's wrong with that?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"Somebody else's liberty for my peace of mind"?
You prefer sacrifice everyone's liberty to be fair. Still waiting for the Jew, Budhist, Catholic, Mormon, Whiccan suicide bomber.....? I seriously doubt hispanic women are being pulled over on a daily basis to verify their immigration status. I suppose you think a Muslim woman should be able to wear a burka on her drivers license photo. If not, can a male police officer require her to remove her face covering to verify her identity? Is that officer racist or religiously insensitive? I'm not suggesting Muslims get more scrutinized than the 80 year woman from Minnesota is today. I'm suggesting tomorrow, scrutinize the 80 year old woman from Minnesota less. Police set up traps around bars at 3AM....is that profiling. Not all people driving out of the bar at closing time are drunk and dangerous. What right do they have setting up a DUI checkpoint? There are responsible patrons with designated drivers. Just because most drunk drivers come from bars doesn't mean that all people leaving a bar are drunk and a hazard to society.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes, go ahead and say that avoiding generalizations is "being PC" and therefore too cowardly to admit the truth. ... "The only good Injun, Gook, Wetback, Yid, Commie, Papist, Wasp, Mormon, Nigger, Rebel, Torie, is a dead one. ... Somebody else's liberty for my peace of mind, what's wrong with that?
Hey, Chinese translations please Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Um,...yes completely unprecedented. The head of the EPA is appointed by the president of the US. In the entire history of the EPA, they have never decided to regulate "green house gasses" they were established to regulate pollution. It is unprecedented for them to deem what a mammal exhales or farts to be a pollutant. If the president doesn't agree with the head of the EPA, he's gone. If McCain were president, farts and exhilations wouldn't be considered pollution...methane...C02. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where the government regulates my farts and breath. EPA is not independent...Obama appointed a greeny/communist/community organizer.
The green movement is the new communist movement. Van Jones left the Communist Party to become an environmental activist. Green is the new red.
I'm generally very impressed by these moves. If we continue on this trajectory, Obama will be known as that super unpopular guy who failed to live up to the hype but nailed the environmental stuff. By 2012, I might actually be okay with that.
Mountain top removal approval annoys me a fair bit, but if I'm forced to weigh it against the gains, I'd say it's more than worth it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm generally very impressed by these moves. If we continue on this trajectory, Obama will be known as that super unpopular guy who failed to live up to the hype but nailed the environmental stuff.
That's the point of this administration. Progressives have always understood that they cannot get their policies implemented via the legislature, the will of the people. They rely on the courts and bureaucracy to institute their agenda. For Alinski, the ends justifies the means. Only 37% of American support the health care bill but they will pass it. Global warming legislation is equally unpopular. 5 senators have announced their retirement...they are martyring themselves for the progressive agenda. Obama is an extreme leftist socialist who is in a mad rush to implement his agenda before the elections in the fall. His lies got him in and he has a small window of opportunity to institute his statist policies. Obama and Dodd will happily end their political careers after instituting their policies against the will of the people. Alinski would be proud.
[ January 09, 2010, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As far as bypassing Congress goes, Look at the four things listed on the link, as far as the EPA goes. 1. Enforcement of an act passed by Congress. 2. Doing their job in its truest sense, by protecting us from harmful pollutants. 3. Doesn't really apply. 4. Doesn't really apply. And actually, every major legislative landmark in the cause of environmentalism, health care, and civil rights in the last 50 years (well, i could try and make the argument that it goes back to the Civil War Amendments, but meh) were passed by progressives via Congress.
If you want to get into Presidents running the government by presidential fiat, maybe we should discuss the biggest abuser of that principle of the last couple decades. Here's a hint; he was in office directly preceding Obama. You can't use Congress as an excuse when stuff happens you don't like, then claim it's absolutely necessary for the president to take unapproved actions when it's stuff you do like. (here's where I act condescending) Do you understand why?
And you know the irony is, while the health care bill itself is viewed negatively by a majority of the population, the public option has the support of a majority of the population.
ETA: To address your edit, Dodd, along with Frank in the House, are going to be key players in getting incredibly important banking reform passed that will help find a happy medium between the Wild Wild West status quo and a return to Glass-Steagall. It's wildly popular legislation, by the way.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Barnie Frank...you mean the guy who was the Senate Banking Committee Chair and denied Bush's press to reign in Fannie and Freddie. Better to keep lending to people who don't deserve loans for diversity sake. Barnie Frank, the champion of eliminating "red lining"...which banks collapsed first? Fannie and Freddie,...government run banks with a progressive agenda. Fannie and Freddie bought the credit swaps and consolidated mortgages....at the bidding of a progressive government. Lend to people with zero money down and crap for credit.
Will they be good police officers? Obviously it isn't about good police but the racial makup of police. The government cannot dictate outcomes only opportunity....Chicago get ready for a dumber police force. You can tout the diversity though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes, go ahead and say that avoiding generalizations is "being PC" and therefore too cowardly to admit the truth. ... "The only good Injun, Gook, Wetback, Yid, Commie, Papist, Wasp, Mormon, Nigger, Rebel, Torie, is a dead one. ... Somebody else's liberty for my peace of mind, what's wrong with that?
Hey, Chinese translations please
Bah you're right. I felt a titch guilty not sticking to my guns, even if the post was quite intimidating.
吧，你說的真的。 雖然翻譯我所寫的字有一點可怕， 我才有内疚的感覺。 我應該保持努力。
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes Mal, THAT Barnie Frank. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal, I am curious where you get your national defense talking points from. They may have been infiltrated by Al Queda.
You say that one lone man with explosive shorts has the entire US running scared. While we in the US deny that we are running, are scared, or any combination, Al Queda is running ads saying how great a victory their attempted airplane bomb was--getting the entire country running scared.
You correct yourself by saying that its the Government that is running scared. Al Queda has a goal of making the US Government appear weak so that they can increase recruiting. They do this with propaganda decrying every single action as one where the US runs scared.
You attack President Obama's speech in Egypt. Al Queda attacked President Obama's speech in Egypt.
You wish to put the majority of our homeland defenses into profiling, where we search only those who are young Arab men. Al Queda has been assuming that is our plan, and has been recruiting heavily non-Arabs, and women.
You decry full body scanners, calling them strip searches of little old ladies. They appear to be the best chance we have of detecting explosives that Al Queda will try to sneak aboard an airplane.
In other words, you are promoting we use a technique that Al-Queda can cheaply work around--bring in some women from Malaysia who don't fit the "profile" or some good old white muslims from Detroit--instead of a system of full body scans that would be expensive and difficult to work around.
And your main argument for doing this is one of religious warfare. You want the US to go to war against all of Islam instead of the minority that is Al Queda. Al-Queda's biggest dream is to have the US go to war against all of Islam instead of just them. This would legitimize them as the leaders not of a few thousand idiots, but of millions and millions of good people. You would be increasing the numbers of our enemies by a factor of millions.
These are not things that would keep our country safe. These are desires that would actually give aid and comfort to our enemies.
Are you sure that you are not getting your talking points from an Al Queda spy?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)