Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#2702 Mar 22 2017 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,292 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
"would "most likely include" not only anyone born on U.S. soil but anyone born overseas of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.


Wait, maybe I am confused, but doesn't that right there negate the whole "Obama was born in Kenya" mythical problem, anyway?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2703 Mar 23 2017 at 5:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
See how he actually went out and got an official determination of his status?

He didn't. Congress made a determination on its own (really, the CRS made a determination which put the matter to rest). Just as McCain didn't actively petition Congress about his PCZ birth but rather that was something they took up and decided when questions arose. If Congress was content with Obama's status and didn't see need to investigate further then so be it. Notice how none of these people were required to hand in their "I'm A Real American" document package in but rather Congress decided the matter for them?

The actual difference here being that we knew McCain and Romney were born abroad and we were just hashing through the legal mechanics of what that fact meant. In Obama's case, there was no more legitimate question of his birthplace than there was for Clinton or Reagan or Bush or Ross Perot (none of whom were required to present birth certificates). So comparing Obama to Romney or McCain is flawed right from the start.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2017 7:00am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2704 Mar 23 2017 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Notice how none of these people were required to hand in their "I'm A Real American" document package in but rather Congress decided the matter for them?
They're whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2705 Mar 23 2017 at 9:59 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,885 posts
gbaji wrote:
Obama is legally required to be a natural born citizen. How do you imagine one proves that?

Probably the same way every other president has done so without a birth certificate.
gbaji wrote:
There is zero legal requirement for any president to provide their tax returns.

And zero legal requirement for any president to provide their birth certificate. You don't get to wish the courts required it from him (or anyone else) when they didn't and then use that imagined scenario to build your case.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure what your argument is here.

Again, that tax documents have been requested and provided (but not legally required) by nearly all major party candidates for the past 4 decades while a birth certificate has been requested and provided (but not legally required) for one.

Requesting tax returns from Trump is the norm, while him not providing them is the exception. Requesting a birth certificate from Obama is an exception, while him not providing it would be the norm.
#2706 Mar 24 2017 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Allegory wrote:
You don't get to wish the courts required it from him (or anyone else) when they didn't and then use that imagined scenario to build your case.
Good luck with that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2707 Mar 24 2017 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
See how he actually went out and got an official determination of his status?


Please link a copy of his long form birth certificate.


George Romney was born in Mexico. Thus, he does not have a US birth certificate. The question was never where he was born, or whether he was born in the US (he wasn't). The issue was whether a person born to two US citizens, outside the US, met the "natural born citizen" requirement. The determination was that yes, if both your parents are US citizens, you are also a US citizen, naturally, at birth.

Which is not the case for Obama. In his case, he can only be a citizen if he was born in the US. Which is why birth records clearly proving this fact become relevant for him, while not relevant for George Romney, or say John McCain.

Didn't think this was so complicated.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2708 Mar 24 2017 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,292 posts
Except it states "at least one" parent. It doesn't say two.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2709 Mar 24 2017 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Except it states "at least one" parent. It doesn't say two.
If you leave out facts, everything gbaji posts is true!!
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2710 Mar 24 2017 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
gbaji wrote:
The question was never where he was born, or whether he was born in the US (he wasn't).
Uh-huh. Nobody on the political right, media included, never ever, ever claimed or suggested otherwise, right?

You, sincerely, are a tool factory.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2711 Mar 24 2017 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The question was never where he was born, or whether he was born in the US (he wasn't).
Uh-huh. Nobody on the political right, media included, never ever, ever claimed or suggested otherwise, right?


Huh? We're talking about George Romney, father of Mitt Romney. No one ever argued that he wasn't born in Mexico. You're like lifting random line of text from my posts and then inserting them somewhere else or something.

You asked why it's reasonable to ask for Obama's full birth records but not George Romney. I have answered, twice now, that the fact of Romney being born outside the country was never in doubt, nor ever questioned. Romney, since both his parents were US citizens, was a US citizen because of that fact, regardless of where he was born. Thus, his birth certificate was irrelevant to the question of natural born citizenship. Obama was born to one US citizen and one foreign national. Additionally, his mother was not old enough to pass on natural citizenship at birth by the laws at the time Obama was born. Thus, the question of where Obama was born, and the importance of proving that he was born in the US was relevant to that status.

How many freaking times do I need to explain this to you?

Quote:
You, sincerely, are a tool factory.


You seriously ought to look in the mirror. Because at this point, you're not making even the tiniest bit of sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2712 Mar 24 2017 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Except it states "at least one" parent. It doesn't say two.


What is the "it" you are referring to? If one parent is not a US citizen, but one is, the one that is has to meet a residency and age requirement. The specifics of that requirement have changed over the years as new legislation has passed, but at the time Obama was born, his mother did not meet that requirement under the laws at the time and thus he could not be a natural born citizen unless he was born in the US.

That is why the details in his birth certificate were important in his case, while they were not important in the case of say John McCain, or George Romney. In the same way that such a document certainly would have been demanded in the case of Chester Arthur, had birth certificates been generated in the state of Vermont when he was born. Obama is not a special unique snowflake in this. There have been several challenges made to the natural born citizenship status of presidential candidates. Obama is simply the only one for whom a birth certificate was both available and was relevant to the question of natural born citizenship.

Is this really an argument you guys are going to keep clinging to? What's the point? It's a done deal. He did, eventually, provide the requested documentation. Why are we even arguing about this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2713 Mar 24 2017 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Good question: Why are you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2714 Mar 25 2017 at 2:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,292 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Except it states "at least one" parent. It doesn't say two.


What is the "it" you are referring to?


Your quote, which stated:

Quote:
At one point, the Congressional Research Service - an arm of the Library of Congress that is supposed to provide authoritative but impartial research for elected members - advised that its analysts agreed with George Romney, according to a congressional source.

In a paper in November aimed at clarifying presidential eligibility, the Congressional Research Service declared that the practical, legal meaning of "natural born citizen" would "most likely include" not only anyone born on U.S. soil but anyone born overseas of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.


But I didn't go farther than that, for research.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2715 Mar 27 2017 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Good question: Why are you?
Easier than defending the new guy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2716 Mar 27 2017 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I guess. It's a terrible argument to rehash though, there's no win condition for the Birthers here. They got laughed out of court, proven wrong and, even if they were magically proven right somehow, that just means that Obama took them for a ride for eight years. You'd think all these people would have slunk off defeated by now but, eh, I guess some of them are weird enough to want to keep going down that rabbit hole over and over again.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2717 Mar 27 2017 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Sean Spicer says 45 is "serious" about working with Democrats. Which I don't doubt, since most of the Republicans sure don't want to work with him.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2718 Mar 27 2017 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,292 posts
My new favorite hashtag: #GOPDnD
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2719 Mar 27 2017 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,885 posts
"Make a Constitution saving throw America." is pretty great.
#2720 Mar 27 2017 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Except it states "at least one" parent. It doesn't say two.


What is the "it" you are referring to?


Your quote, which stated:

Quote:
At one point, the Congressional Research Service - an arm of the Library of Congress that is supposed to provide authoritative but impartial research for elected members - advised that its analysts agreed with George Romney, according to a congressional source.

In a paper in November aimed at clarifying presidential eligibility, the Congressional Research Service declared that the practical, legal meaning of "natural born citizen" would "most likely include" not only anyone born on U.S. soil but anyone born overseas of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.


But I didn't go farther than that, for research.


Ah. Ok. It says "most likely include" and "at least one parent". Both of George Romney's parents were US citizens though, so he was even more clear.

And BTW, the wiggle room in "most likely include" regarding "at least one parent" is the case that applies to Obama, and not to Romney. As I've mentioned several times now. Romney was born to two US citizens who were living/working as missionaries in Mexico when he was born. The fact that he was born in Mexico was never in doubt, thus there was no need to see a birth certificate to prove anything. And in his case, since both his parents were US citizens, he was considered a US citizen. Yeah, the statement in the quote is awkward, but it's designed to be complete. Two parents who are US citizens is included in the set of "at least one parent who was a US citizen".

The wiggle room is the bit that I mentioned earlier, and which changed over time. It's the immigration law itself, specifically as it regards a person born to one US citizen and one foreign national. In that case, there's an age and residency requirement for the US citizen parent in order for the child to be a citizen at birth. Since Obama's mother failed to meet that requirement when he was born (she was too young, being only 18 at the time), she could not pass citizenship at birth to Obama by that statue. And thus, in Obama's case (but not in Romney's case, or McCain's case), the question of whether he was born on US soil was very important. The others were not born on US soil. We know they were not born on US soil. The issue of where they were born was not actually relevant to determining their status as natural born citizens, so there was no need to examine their full birth documentation.

There are multiple ways one can be considered a natural born citizen. Thus, there are different avenues to make that determination, depending on the specifics of the person in question. Both McCain and Romney were born to two US citizens. Thus, under US immigration law, they were automatically US citizens at birth, regardless of where they were born. Obama was born to one US citizen and one foreign national, and thus fell into a different category and required different documentation. Is that really so hard to understand?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2721 Mar 27 2017 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Obama was born to one US citizen and one foreign national, and thus fell into a different category

That category being "Natural born citizens born in the United States".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2722 Mar 27 2017 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,507 posts
I guess it's a *really* good thing that a Cuban-Canadian wasn't nominated.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#2723 Mar 27 2017 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Obama was born to one US citizen and one foreign national, and thus fell into a different category

That category being "Natural born citizens born in the United States".


Yup. Which is why the bolded bit becomes important.

See how that's different than "Natural born citizen born to two US citizens outside the United States"?

Can you also noodle out why a document with witness signatures to the location of the aforementioned birth is relevant in the first case, but not in the second?

Do you need people to chew your food for you too?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2724 Mar 27 2017 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Debalic wrote:
I guess it's a *really* good thing that a Cuban-Canadian wasn't nominated.


Yeah. Funny thing about that. Cruz fell into the same "born of one US citizen and one foreign national" category. However, in the case of Cruz, his mother (the US citizen) did met the age and residency period requirements under the relevant immigration statute, where Obama's mother did not. Thus, just as with McCain and Romney, the fact that he was born outside the US did not have any relevance to his natural born citizenship status.

It's not surprising that the only person out of this set for whom a birth certificate was demanded was the one person for whom actually being born in the US was necessary to meet that criteria. It is, in fact, quite reasonable for that to be the case. We don't need to see Cruz's birth certificate because we know he was born outside the US. There's zero information in there relevant to the question at hand. Ditto with George Romney. Ditto with John McCain.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2725 Mar 28 2017 at 6:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Can you also noodle out why a document with witness signatures to the location of the aforementioned birth is relevant in the first case, but not in the second?

They're not. There was zero question about where Obama was born. None. The only people who wanted to pretend that were was a question were the unhinged theorists who needed to desperately cling to a fairy tale that one day Orly Taitz was going to arrive in silver armor and slay the Scary Obama Monster. No one else had any questions: We were all laughing at you (well, those of us who weren't just politically using you like the tools you are). That's why Congress never brought up the issue. That's why it went nowhere in court. It was a ridiculous joke theory clung to by lunatics. And, of course, those lunatic-adjacent who were, ahem, "just asking questions" and continue to go into conniptions for pages about it even today.
Quote:
Do you need people to chew your food for you too?

Nah. Some of us grew up long ago. It's time for you children with your fairy tale fetishes to do the same. You were wrong. You were used. It's not usually fun but adults can admit that they were wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2726 Mar 28 2017 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Do you need people to chew your food for you too?
Nah. Some of us grew up long ago.
Didn't someone recently say something about personal attacks and "basically losing" arguments?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2727 Mar 28 2017 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not Gbaji, that's for sure. He's constant as the north star!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2728 Mar 28 2017 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,202 posts
I think Cruz should be forced to supply his fingerprints and birth certificate so we can confirm that he is the Zodiac Killer.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2729 Mar 28 2017 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
***
1,049 posts
Good God, man, how much more evidence do you need?!
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2730 Mar 28 2017 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,202 posts
We don't want to be hasty, the DNA evidence is circumstantial, for all we know Ted Cruz could have sucked the blood of the zodiac and gained his powers rather than being the Zodiac himself. But at least one of these things is definitely true. Either he is the Zodiac, or is a night walking zodiac demon.

Isn't it interesting that noone has seen Ted Cruz and the chupacabra in the same place?

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2731 Mar 28 2017 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,507 posts
I meant to edit, not dupe.

Edited, Mar 28th 2017 8:56pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#2732 Mar 28 2017 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,507 posts
Wait, aren't our representatives vetted when they take office? How could Obama serve as a Senator if nobody knew where he was from? Or do they just check his driver's license to see if it's at least a well done fake?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#2733 Mar 28 2017 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,202 posts
Debalic wrote:
Wait, aren't our representatives vetted when they take office? How could Obama serve as a Senator if nobody knew where he was from? Or do they just check his driver's license to see if it's at least a well done fake?


I'm not sure other elected officials have the same requirements.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2734 Mar 28 2017 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,777 posts
Debalic wrote:
Wait, aren't our representatives vetted when they take office? How could Obama serve as a Senator if nobody knew where he was from? Or do they just check his driver's license to see if it's at least a well done fake?


Requirements for each office is different. Some more restrictive than others. President having some of the stricter requirements.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#2735 Mar 29 2017 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,346 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When you attack the person and not the argument, you've basically already lost. Just saying.

There's five people who post here. There is no "winning" or "losing", just wasting time and idle amusement. No one is thinking "Boy, I'm going to change Gbaji's mind!" or "The merits of my argument will be judged accordingly by the community!"


Uh...I think gbaji has stated that he does. Remember all those secret readers that agree with him and send him PMs about it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#2736 Mar 29 2017 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,399 posts
Which was weird, since all the hundreds of anonymous PMs I got disagreed with all those other anonymous PMs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2737 Mar 29 2017 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,292 posts
I should really stop feeding the fire by sending Gbaji and lolgaxe all those anonymous PM's.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2738 Mar 31 2017 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
45, September wrote:
The reason they get immunity is because they did something wrong. If they didn't do anything wrong, they don't think in terms of immunity. Five people. Folks, I'm telling you: Nobody's seen anything like this in our country's history.
45, yesterday wrote:
Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!
There you have it, Mr President admits Flynn is guilty. Smiley: thumbsup

Edited, Mar 31st 2017 9:56am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2739 Mar 31 2017 at 10:28 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,885 posts
Barely related, but worth viewing. Always get immunity if you plan to say anything, even the truth when you are innocent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
#2740 Apr 01 2017 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Um... You provided your own answer. The "high profile" cases are a subset of all "hate crimes" (and are presumably large scale type events).
I said "high profile", because those are the ones that we know about.

Gbaji wrote:
For it to be terrorism, there has to be an intent to use the event to put fear into the population as a whole
Knowing that you would could be assaulted for simply existing is placing fear into the population as a whole.

Gbaji wrote:
with an eye towards changing positions/policies in some way
Hence why I said in a meaningful difference. To the people being assaulted, it's all the same. I understand the textbook difference, but there are negligible differences on the actions, especially to the victims.

Gbaji wrote:
The IRA planted bombs in public places and then called up the cops and told them where the bombs were. In most cases, no one was injured (with some notable exceptions).
I replied to your quote "Not all hate crimes are terrorism". Your example is that not all terrorism is a hate crime. Unless you were to argue the absence of love in the said terrorist action, I would agree.

#2741 Apr 04 2017 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
McCain, to the surprise of absolutely no one except maybe the handful of saps who still think he's man of some integrity, says that he'll vote to abolish the filibuster on SC nominees.

I assume all of the people who whined and cried about it a few years ago will now be saying "Oh, yeah, totally we need to do this" while handwaving off their previous statements and making a dozen limp excuses why it's now okay. I ain't even complaining about them doing it -- everyone knew they would -- just a nice solid 'toldja so' about what everyone already knew.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2742 Apr 04 2017 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,049 posts
I can't think of anyone here who's that naive.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2743 Apr 04 2017 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
I can't think of anyone here who's that naive.
Nope. Not one single person will EVER chime in about how this is OK now.


Ever.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2744 Apr 05 2017 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,399 posts
It'll be really fun when the fight is to reinstate the filibuster.

ISIS says America is being run by an idiot. America wonders if ISIS is being run by the guy with the red coat on those Hotel.com commercials.

Edited, Apr 5th 2017 9:55am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2745 Apr 05 2017 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,777 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It'll be really fun when the fight is to reinstate the filibuster.

There's an Xzibit meme in there somewhere.

Do kids still do Xzibit memes?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#2746 Apr 05 2017 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,173 posts
So Bannon is off the National Security Council, which falls short of public evisceration but is still somewhat reassuring.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2747 Apr 05 2017 at 5:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Samira wrote:
So Bannon is off the National Security Council, which falls short of public evisceration but is still somewhat reassuring.


So what does it mean? Security apparatus finally got a deal with Trump after the several months of public negotiations? McMaster is level 99 ninja? What?

Edited, Apr 5th 2017 7:54pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2748 Apr 05 2017 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Um... You provided your own answer. The "high profile" cases are a subset of all "hate crimes" (and are presumably large scale type events).
I said "high profile", because those are the ones that we know about.


And? The high profile ones tend to also be the ones that had the broadest impact, and thus are more likely to be known. Thus, they're inherently more likely to share many of the features associated with terrorism. That in no way means that all hate crimes are terrorism, which, if you recall, was the point I was questioning.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
For it to be terrorism, there has to be an intent to use the event to put fear into the population as a whole
Knowing that you would could be assaulted for simply existing is placing fear into the population as a whole.


No. It puts fear into you. If the aspect of your existence that it targeted is shared by a group, then it puts fear into that group. That's not the same as the population as a whole. If I plant bombs in random places where people congregate and set them off to randomly kill whomever happens to be there at the time, then everyone is at risk, and everyone is fearful. If I hate left handed red headed step children, and engage in targeted attacks against that set of people, then the only people who are afraid are those in the group.

The former case is terrorism (well, most likely). The latter is hate. While they can overlap, they are not the same.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
with an eye towards changing positions/policies in some way
Hence why I said in a meaningful difference. To the people being assaulted, it's all the same. I understand the textbook difference, but there are negligible differences on the actions, especially to the victims.


Again though, that's the point. The objective of terrorism is to put fear into everyone, not just the victims of the attack, or those who share some criteria with those victims. That is, arguably, the defining characteristic of terrorism. It's not targeted at a single group. It's specifically designed to make everyone take the terrorist seriously because anyone could be killed.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The IRA planted bombs in public places and then called up the cops and told them where the bombs were. In most cases, no one was injured (with some notable exceptions).
I replied to your quote "Not all hate crimes are terrorism". Your example is that not all terrorism is a hate crime. Unless you were to argue the absence of love in the said terrorist action, I would agree.


I gave two examples. One showing how hate crimes don't always meet the criteria to be terrorism, and another showing how terrorism doesn't always meet the criteria to be a hate crime. You've chosen to ignore the first one. I'll repeat it for you:

Quote:
Some guy randomly beating up a gay guy because of his sexual orientation is committing a hate crime. He's not even remotely committing an act of terrorism though. Somewhat by definition a hate crime is the result of someone's hate (obvious yeah). If you hate <insert group here> you're not necessarily planning some grand scheme to influence people's opinions much less broad political policies when you take a hateful action towards a member of that group. The thought process for such people likely does not extend much beyond "there's someone in <insert group> right there! Let's get him!"
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2749 Apr 05 2017 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
gbaji wrote:
If I hate left handed red headed step children, and engage in targeted attacks against that set of people, then the only people who are afraid are those in the group.
Who are now terrified.

Terrorism.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2750 Apr 05 2017 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,292 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If I hate left handed red headed step children, and engage in targeted attacks against that set of people, then the only people who are afraid are those in the group.
Who are now terrified.

Terrorism.


Also, the people around left handed red headed step children have to be terrified, in case Gbaji decides to perpetrate his attack on them while they are near, which could have collateral damage.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2751 Apr 05 2017 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If I hate left handed red headed step children, and engage in targeted attacks against that set of people, then the only people who are afraid are those in the group.
Who are now terrified.

Terrorism.


Also, the people around left handed red headed step children have to be terrified, in case Gbaji decides to perpetrate his attack on them while they are near, which could have collateral damage.

I note that his special title is "Encyclopedia" and not "Dictionary".Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 100 All times are in CDT
stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (99)