Page 166 of 233 FirstFirst ... 66116156164165166167168176216 ... LastLast
Results 4,951 to 4,980 of 6985

Thread: President Trump: Making America Great Again...

  1. #4951

    Default

    Should've seen that pardon coming a mile away. They've been quite the soulmates for a while:


  2. #4952
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    14,815

    Default

    Arpaio is a giant piece of shit. Birds of a feather.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  3. #4953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Why would they care if the government has their information? Nothing can be done to them unless they broke the law.
    Aren't you a fan of limited government?

  4. #4954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Aren't you a fan of limited government?
    Aren't many of his critics advocates for big government?

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  5. #4955

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Aren't many of his critics advocates for big government?

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    Haha. Yes, good point. No one can object to government intrusions on privacy if they have voted Democrat in the past. Good point.

  6. #4956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Haha. Yes, good point. No one can object to government intrusions on privacy if they have voted Democrat in the past. Good point.
    That's not my point, but since you went there, what on earth makes you think this is an intrusion on privacy?.

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  7. #4957
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Holy Land
    Posts
    14,421

    Default

    C'mon cowboy, that's a pretty scary thing for the Justice Dept to be doing (unless every protester is suspected of committing a crime).
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  8. #4958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    That's not my point, but since you went there, what on earth makes you think this is an intrusion on privacy?.

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    A government request for personal info about individuals that accessed a website? Doesn't that sound like privacy to you?

    Honestly, I'm truly confused now.

  9. #4959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    A government request for personal info about individuals that accessed a website? Doesn't that sound like privacy to you?

    Honestly, I'm truly confused now.
    Now we're full circle. What are they afraid the government is going to do with it if they haven't broken the law?

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  10. #4960
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Now we're full circle. What are they afraid the government is going to do with it if they haven't broken the law?
    Not breaking the law isn't why we have a right to privacy. Does the government have a compelling interest to know that information? The Constitution was written to require the government to show that it does in order to obtain this kind of thing. Come on!
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  11. #4961
    Senior Member Clark Addison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Beautiful South
    Posts
    7,092

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Now we're full circle. What are they afraid the government is going to do with it if they haven't broken the law?

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    Jeez Cowboy, wuap once said that you and Katy were the two smartest people on CS. Then Katy started dissing my Maps and Geography thread, and now you are all "I don't see how the government compiling enemies lists could be a problem". Please tell me you are trying to make a point here so I don't start losing faith in wuap's judgement! I don't know what I will have left without that faith.

  12. #4962
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    Not breaking the law isn't why we have a right to privacy. Does the government have a compelling interest to know that information? The Constitution was written to require the government to show that it does in order to obtain this kind of thing. Come on!
    Not really. There is no right to privacy in the constitution, except for one implied by the courts.

    That said, I think it is very disturbing that they sought that information precisely BECAUSE no crime was committed or suspected. The govt should keep out of my business unless there is some very good reason. And visiting a site that is engaging in anti-government but legal political activity should, standing alone, never justify being forced to identify yourself. It's like the government collecting names and addresses at an anti-trump rally. Completely improper.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  13. #4963
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Now we're full circle. What are they afraid the government is going to do with it if they haven't broken the law?

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    I respect your opinion and typically I agree with you fully, but the logic of your position here eludes me.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  14. #4964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    Not breaking the law isn't why we have a right to privacy. Does the government have a compelling interest to know that information? The Constitution was written to require the government to show that it does in order to obtain this kind of thing. Come on!
    At what point have they violated privacy? Is it when they find out who organized the rally? What about just going to the rally and seeing who the leaders/participants are? Is that wrong, too?

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  15. #4965
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,828

    Default President Trump: Making America Great Again...

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    At what point have they violated privacy? Is it when they find out who organized the rally? What about just going to the rally and seeing who the leaders/participants are? Is that wrong, too?
    That is not an apt analogy. As I understand it, They were trying to force a third party to provide identifying information that is not otherwise available to the public. Being present at a public gathering is not the same.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  16. #4966
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    At what point have they violated privacy? Is it when they find out who organized the rally? What about just going to the rally and seeing who the leaders/participants are? Is that wrong, too?
    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    That is not an apt analogy. As I understand it, They were trying to force a third party to provide identifying information that is not otherwise available to the public. Being present at a public gathering is not the same.
    This.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  17. #4967
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Not really. There is no right to privacy in the constitution, except for one implied by the courts.

    That said, I think it is very disturbing that they sought that information precisely BECAUSE no crime was committed or suspected. The govt should keep out of my business unless there is some very good reason. And visiting a site that is engaging in anti-government but legal political activity should, standing alone, never justify being forced to identify yourself. It's like the government collecting names and addresses at an anti-trump rally. Completely improper.
    The implied right from the courts means it's legally there until the SCOTUS says otherwise. Saying that there isn't one is pedantic at this point. Or, Originalist nonsense, like returning to the gold standard and letting state legislatures appoint senators.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  18. #4968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    This.
    So it would be ok for the government to be present at a rally in order to identify people, but not try to identify them after the fact?


    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  19. #4969

    Default

    yikes
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  20. #4970
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    So it would be ok for the government to be present at a rally in order to identify people, but not try to identify them after the fact?


    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    If the rally were public, and there was no trespassing to attend say a private affair, then it would be fine to me. This already happens with plainclothes undercover officers. But, demanding a list of invitees or attendees ex post facto, no. And, I reject out of hand the whole, "If you're not doing anything illegal, you've got nothing to worry about." Our rights are unalienable.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  21. #4971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    If the rally were public, and there was no trespassing to attend say a private affair, then it would be fine to me. This already happens with plainclothes undercover officers. But, demanding a list of invitees or attendees ex post facto, no. And, I reject out of hand the whole, "If you're not doing anything illegal, you've got nothing to worry about." Our rights are unalienable.
    If the intent/end result are the same, why is one okay and the other not? What about the FBI reviewing security tapes to determine who the leaders of a protest are? Is that okay?

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  22. #4972

    Default

    Cowboy, do you really have no problem with the government tracking people that visit certain websites? (I know, Walter, that they already do). If so, you are definitely less libertarian than you portray yourself here.

  23. #4973
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    If the intent/end result are the same, why is one okay and the other not? What about the FBI reviewing security tapes to determine who the leaders of a protest are? Is that okay?
    If the FBI got the security tapes from their own recordings, fine. The principle, to me, is the same thing with photo tickets. The end result of the government asking a private entity to give it private information is not the same. The govt is asking a private entity to violate someone's right, without obtaining permission beforehand, thereby using private entities for govt purposes. It's not the same thing. We're talking 4th and 9th Amendments here. The rights not spelled out in the Constitution does not mean that they are possessed by the State. Ergo, the right to privacy, judicially affirmed, should hold here. If the government wants to know the IP addresses of individuals who visited that website, let them show due cause to a judge, get a warrant, and subpoena the records. But 1.3 million records of anyone who visited the site? 9th Amendment!

    Especially when we see how just unrighteous this government is, and what a complete piece of shit Jeff Sessions is, I have a huge problem with the government with Trump as XO asking for private info about people who protested his inauguration. The way to destroy an opposition is to find the leaders and neutralize them. This facilitates that. From the many videos I watched, the most violent people that day seemed to be the DC and Capitol Police.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  24. #4974

    Default

    who knew the whole pastoral schtick was a cover for cowboy being a fucking dummy this whole time
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  25. #4975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    If the FBI got the security tapes from their own recordings, fine. The principle, to me, is the same thing with photo tickets. The end result of the government asking a private entity to give it private information is not the same. The govt is asking a private entity to violate someone's right, without obtaining permission beforehand, thereby using private entities for govt purposes. It's not the same thing. We're talking 4th and 9th Amendments here. The rights not spelled out in the Constitution does not mean that they are possessed by the State. Ergo, the right to privacy, judicially affirmed, should hold here. If the government wants to know the IP addresses of individuals who visited that website, let them show due cause to a judge, get a warrant, and subpoena the records. But 1.3 million records of anyone who visited the site? 9th Amendment!

    Especially when we see how just unrighteous this government is, and what a complete piece of shit Jeff Sessions is, I have a huge problem with the government with Trump as XO asking for private info about people who protested his inauguration. The way to destroy an opposition is to find the leaders and neutralize them. This facilitates that. From the many videos I watched, the most violent people that day seemed to be the DC and Capitol Police.
    Okay, but it seems you are saying two different things. First, you say that it's okay for the FBI to gather information on protesters as long as they aren't forcing a third party to give it to them, but this,
    The way to destroy an opposition is to find the leaders and neutralize them. This facilitates that.
    suggests you don't believe the government should collect the information at all. Which is it? (I ask that for clarity, not in an argumentative way) Also, regarding the quoted statement and going back to my original question (again), how will the government "neutralize" them if they broke no laws?

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  26. #4976

    Default

    It's come out that one of the deplorables in Charlottesville fired a weapon. Probably one of the good people our dipshit president was referring to.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/2...p2jwMAfr?amp=1
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  27. #4977
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Okay, but it seems you are saying two different things. First, you say that it's okay for the FBI to gather information on protesters as long as they aren't forcing a third party to give it to them, but this, suggests you don't believe the government should collect the information at all. Which is it? (I ask that for clarity, not in an argumentative way) Also, regarding the quoted statement and going back to my original question (again), how will the government "neutralize" them if they broke no laws?
    This government is corrupt. You don't have to break the law regarding protesting. You probably commit a felony every year without realizing it (https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-way...-it#.cQOLdVl2Y). Let the government identify you and then turn a guarded eye to your life, and you can pretty much lock up anyone, make them spend money on attorneys and bail, or force them into a plea bargain so that they can try and get their lives back. So, if the FBI/NSA/ATF/ETC wants to identify someone, let them work for it.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  28. #4978

    Default


  29. #4979

    Default

    Here's some more on some the Charlottesville goons being arrested:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/2...eiO84bc0?amp=1

    “At first it was peaceful protest,” Mr. Long told The Root, a black news and culture website. “Until someone pointed a gun at my head. Then the same person pointed it at my foot and shot the ground.”

    Photos showed that Mr. Long had been using an improvised torch to spar with a man carrying a flagpole when the shot was fired.

    Richard W. Preston, 52, was charged with discharging a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, a crime punishable by two to 10 years in prison. He was arrested Saturday and is in the custody of the Baltimore County Detention Center in Towson, Md., the police said.

    Mr. Preston is an imperial wizard in the Ku Klux Klan, according to numerous news reports. “We didn’t go as the Klan,” Mr. Preston told an Indiana TV station shortly after the rally. “We didn’t go there to create havoc and fight. We went there to protect a monument.”
    The beating victim, DeAndre Harris, 20, was cornered in a parking garage just yards from Police Headquarters, where he was attacked by six men who had gathered for the rally. Mr. Harris has a broken wrist and sustained a head injury that required 10 staples, his lawyer, S. Lee Merritt, said.
    Daniel P. Borden, 18, was charged with malicious wounding in connection with the aggravated assault on Mr. Harris, the police said. He was arrested Friday and was being held at the Hamilton County Justice Center in Cincinnati, the Charlottesville police said in a statement.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  30. #4980
    Semper infra dignitatem PaloAltoCougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pleasanton, CA
    Posts
    11,577

    Default

    Last week's Time had a series of interesting essays about C'ville, the white supremacist movement, and related matters. I've been mulling over what white supremacists, and even less rabid fans of Trump, mean when they say they want to "take America back." Back to what? One of the essays (by Eddie Glaude,chair of the Department of African American Studies at Princeton University) made a number of interesting points, including

    Moreover, several studies have shown that social issues, not economic issues, motivated the Trump voter. Trump voters worried that a particular cultural vision of America was eroding. Politicians' appeals to “the white working class revolt” among Democrats and Republicans is less about the economic devastation of workers and more about white identity—with black and brown folk and immigrants as the scapegoats.
    He closes with three provocative questions, including "Can you truly give up the idea that this is a white nation?" I was raised in the 50s and 60s, and although I was taught to shun bigotry and racism, there was always a subtext that whites were inherently superior (thanks in part to our excellent performance in the preexistence, apparently), and it bothers me that a small (but thankfully decreasing in size) part of me says "no" to that question. I think many millions of my fellow citizens would answer the same way, and that's the problem.

Posting Permissions

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