Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 415 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 299 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 401 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
He contributes absolutely nothing positive to the world, and I think it absolutely disgusting that his bile is anywhere near the public eye. He does deserve all he gets, but also I just can't bring myself to support violence.
I think this is the issue with 'free speech' as a concept. People use it as an excuse to spew hatred and abuse and that should never be ok.
Originally, it was coined (if this the right expression) to refer to freedom to express political opinions even if they are anti government/monarch. Countries like Burma, and North Korea, that's how they use it.
Nowadays,in the west, where we have that sort of freedom of speech, people have come to use it to mean freedom to say anything at all. And often seem to think that it is the one right that should take precedent over all other rights, even where those rights conflict.
Personally, I'm OK with the first version. Less so with the second: I think one person's right say what they like doesn't automatically take priority over another person's right not to be racially abused (for example).
Furthermore, a right to free speech (as in the 'expressing my opinions' sense) doesn't mean you have a right to be given a public platform for it. Your rights aren't violated by not getting an invitation to address the event you would like to. If you are that bothered, get yourself a soap box and head to Hyde Park Corner and express your opinion there. (Not 'you' you, obviously. Although you can if you want to ;biggrin )
It's also worth noting that our right to free speech (or written expression) has been curtailed by law for the last thousand years or so. It's not a recent phenomenon and it can't be blamed on so-called political correctness.
“I bet it’s brand new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalised and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre. Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered.”
-----
It probably didn't get covered because there's no such thing as the Bowling Green massacre. Never happened. ;doh
Can I just remind you that Kelly Anne Conway is SENIOR ADVISOR to Trump. She's giving him advice. Based, if that TV interview is anything to go by, on a somewhat shaky grasp of the facts.
Yes definitely, I was wondering if anybody else thought the same. It is Putin without the Golden Retriever on his head... ;lol
She meat to say 'terrorists' rather than massacre.
(Because those are very similar words, obviously ;doh )
However, whether she lied or 'misspoke' ... has she addressed the fact that her argument was based on a false foundation?
That would be a no.
Also, she said 'it didn't get covered'. Erm, well, if you MEANT to say Bowling Green terrorist (rather than massacre) well, yes it DID get covered, and should have known that.
Which rather makes me think she didn't misspeak.
"Maybe she was referring to the time when Ohio St beat Bowling Green 77-10"
The immigration authorities have therefore, at least for now, agreed to honor the injunction thus completely overturning Trumps executive order.
Now the actual legal standing of the injunction is not what I am going to comment on now,
What I am going to comment on now is that I am very, very confident that Trumps head has just popped roight off his shoulders and it has made me chuckle, a lot
;lol
This is what the ban is really all about, Trump made a lot of promises during the campaigning and I am pretty sure that his team pointed out to him some of these would be seen as unconstitutional, to the extent of being unlawful.
They have picked one of the most controversial issues and used an executive order to execute its implementation, with the full knowledge that it would be subject to a constitutional legal challenge (which has happened). So the real fight is where the line of the Presidents Constitutional right for executive orders, that he or the administration deem are in the nations/national interests is drawn, against the constitutional rights and legislation that is already in place.
If Trump loses the case then be prepared for an announcement of a number of promises/policies being withdrawn or amended and therefore Trump has an iron clad excuse when challenged for not carrying out what he promised - not sure if he will just leave it at that or go on to try and change things in his favour through his usual methods (we al know how he reacts when his plans a thwarted) so he can get the decision overturned later in the term. If he wins the case then he will feel he a carte blanch to implement anything he wants using the Executive Order, despite any negative fallout or damage it may cause.
"His heads popping off, his heads popping off, eeiiadiyo (sp) his heads popping off"
Furthermore, let's not get sloppy with the truth - they committed no domestic terror attacks; they weren't even convicted of PLANNING any domestic terror attacks.
Also, I'm not sure that the vetting arrangements that existed then are exactly the same as the ones that exist now. ;hmm I'll see if can fact-check your statement.
Facts:
- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a congressional hearing in 2011, the vetting process had been tightened.
- Congressional hearing on Jan. 7, 2014, a homeland security official (Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Molly Groom) said the screening process enhanced for refugees.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/
So, simonC, I'm afraid your underlying FACTS are, in fact, not facts.
Did she correct herself? I think, rather, she was corrected, and that isn't simple nit-picking.
Someone making a mistake and then immediately saying so is correcting themselves.
Needing to be corrected by media sources is not the same thing at all.
It is, imo, totally unacceptable that such a high-ranking official should be capable of making such an error. It shows utter disregard for truth in preference to making a splash.
;wink
It is very obvious that he/they can do no right in some peoples eyes.
I dont consider it a hole - do you not consider your loosing campaign against Brexit a hole?
https://www.facebook.com/joseph.dubray/posts/1421333854564290
What's the point of that?
You are doing what Trump and his staff do, deflecting from the original point to avoid having to answer it.
Conway didn't misspeak, she out and out got something so wrong that one must conclude that either she was very badly informed (a worrying thought) or she has no real interest in telling the truth ( a more worrying thought.)
This has nothing to do with poking Trump with a stick because he can do no right, and everything to do with pointing out serious concerns about how he and his administration are going about things.
How can you be happy with a POTUS who has so little regard for the process of law in the USA that he refers to someone who rules against him as a 'so-called judge'?
Take off your 'at least he's not Clinton' blinkers and have a proper look at how he and his team have gone about their first weeks in power.
I wasn't intending to ignore your point. If I misunderstood your point, plaese explain to me what it was.
I took your point to be,
"the key issue is that 2 refugees screened and cleared under the current rules were in fact terrorists"
--
As I have proven, that is not actually true.
So how can you say it is the key issue?
Ignore the 'misspeaking' issue. You made a statement of fact. But it was false.
--
On a separate point, if 'defamatory' = damaging the good reputation of someone; I deny being defamatory to the Trump administration.
On the grounds that (a) I said nothing about the Trump administration.
An(b) I don't agree that they have a good reputation.
Other than that, you carry on. ;ok
Well, he's a much an actual judge as the President is an actual president .