POLITICAL THREAD

[fuzz77]

So according to you, the fact the the shooter had worked for the station, had numerous angry conflicts with the management and employees and was fired had absolutely nothing to do with his motive for shooting the journalists. Instead, you have determined that it was "racism" becasue the shooter was black and the victims white. He just wanted to kill some white folk, that's all.

You've now left no doubt about your ignormance and bigotry. You're disgusting.

Dee, you and I are usually on the same side of most arguments but here...and I'll admit not to going back and finding all of the comments on this subject...I do understand and agree with your argument in principle but Williams gave everyone enough ammo to support just about any claim they would like to make...
This shooter had a long history of making himself a victim and had accused not only the TV station for whom his victims worked of being racist, he had done so with every employer he had over the last few years. He also accused them all of sexual harassment saying they were hostile against him because he was gay.
The issue I see here is this guy had obvious mental health issues and therefore HIS rationalizations should be seen in that light. The thoughts of a troubled man who saw an altered state of reality. Williams claimed to be a victim of racism but his bigger issue was simply with society as a whole. He had failed at holding a job, failed financially to the point that he worked as a male-escort. He knew he was mentally f'd in the head and he needed someone to blame. He hated people, he hated himself.

 

[wkycatfan]

You've got to really be carrying a giant chip on your shoulder to go to the trouble of renaming Mount McKinley to Mount Denali.

 

[WettCat]

I'm surprised President Humble isn't pushing for Mount Obama....

 

[Deeeefense]

Manifesto, Tweets, etc. Its all there. His desire to start a race war. To retaliate for Charleston. On and on.

Oh it was reported, but only for a split second; and not even by the MSM (that I saw). Not exactly the non stop, weeks on end news coverage the rebel flag received as a result of one facebook picture with a shooter. Just a day or two ago, a state legislature voted to remove Jefferson Davis statue from state grounds.

This is why no one here can take you seriously. Youre so partisan/dishonest, you refuse to concede even the most obvious point.

What the hell does politics have to do with this? now your talking like that other idiot.

I've already said race may have been a component - and it's not a matter of "conceding" it's a matter of looking at facts. You make it sound like it's some sort of a contest.

According to you this nut just wanted to go out and kill some white folk and it was purely a coincidence that they happened to be the journalists that worked at the TV station that fired him who he hated. What kind of warped logic is that? Even more incredible you make it sound like the media as well as the citizens of South Carolina, and the Republcian State Legislature and the Republcian Governor were over-reacting to the Charleston Shooter who had an extensive association with white supremacist groups not "just a facebook picture".

I tell you, you're a member here and I try to respect all members but when you post something like you just did it really makes me wonder what you really are.

 

[jamo0001]

You've got to really be carrying a giant chip on your shoulder to go to the trouble of renaming Mount McKinley to Mount Denali.

It's just Denali (no "mount").

 

[From-the-stands]

You've got to really be carrying a giant chip on your shoulder to go to the trouble of renaming Mount McKinley to Mount Denali.

Here it comes.

 

[qwesley]

So deeee is now calling people bigots for pointing out the the significant first-person history of a killer?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

What the hell does politics have to do with this? now your talking like that other idiot.

I've already said race may have been a component - and it's not a matter of "conceding" it's a matter of looking at facts. You make it sound like it's some sort of a contest.

According to you this nut just wanted to go out and kill some white folk and it was purely a coincidence that they happened to be the journalists that worked at the TV station that fired him who he hated. What kind of warped logic is that? Even more incredible you make it sound like the media as well as the citizens of South Carolina, and the Republcian State Legislature and the Republcian Governor were over-reacting to the Charleston Shooter who had an extensive association with white supremacist groups not "just a facebook picture".

I tell you, you're a member here and I try to respect all members but when you post something like you just did it really makes me wonder what you really are.

This is a new level of incoherent partisanship, even for you.

 

[Mojocat]

OK, so what is going on with this site? This particular thread is current, but the threads at the top of page one are from July. Yesterday i looked onces and the threads were from April....

 

[Bill Cosby]

Criticize the POTUS for being a 100% objectively terrible POTUS, get labeled a racist by Defense.

Shoot a few white people, write a racist manifesto saying you're answering some guy's call for a race war, get defended by Defense.


If only we could take away his right to vote like he wants to take away peoples' right to own guns.

 

[qwesley]

OK, so what is going on with this site? This particular thread is current, but the threads at the top of page one are from July. Yesterday i looked onces and the threads were from April....

Every now and then it re-sorts by first post date.

 

[qwesley]

Perhaps 7/11 is racist for having watermelon slushies as Vester claimed....do your research bigots and THINK. Don't just take what FauxNews tells you to think!

 

[Mojocat]

Every now and then it re-sorts by first post date.

Thanks - how might one go about re-sorting, or unsorting, heh....

 

[qwesley]

Thanks - how might one go about re-sorting, or unsorting, heh....

Just click the column heading and it should sort by last post.

 

[qwesley]

The next time one of the liberals, errr moderates, on here claims they want "common sense immigration reform" please note what the left's champion presented today via MSNBC:

Sanders: And I will not deny to you for one minute that we have to substantially increase our outreach to Latino community and to the African-American community. But I think when those communities and others see the agenda that we have fighting for, which among other things means that we give legal status to undocumented people in this country as soon as possible, that we move to comprehensive immigration reform, that we move toward a path to citizenship, that we deal with the outrageously high rates of youth unemployment in the Latino and black communities, I think you will see growing support for us in those communities, just as we’re seeing all over America.

 

[qwesley]

State of IL is giving IOUs for lottery winners...lol.

 

[Mojocat]

Just click the column heading and it should sort by last post.

yes, sort of intuitive now that you say so, heh...thanks.

 

[starchief5]

The next time one of the liberals, errr moderates, on here claims they want "common sense immigration reform" please note what the left's champion presented today via MSNBC:

Sanders: And I will not deny to you for one minute that we have to substantially increase our outreach to Latino community and to the African-American community. But I think when those communities and others see the agenda that we have fighting for, which among other things means that we give legal status to undocumented people in this country as soon as possible, that we move to comprehensive immigration reform, that we move toward a path to citizenship, that we deal with the outrageously high rates of youth unemployment in the Latino and black communities, I think you will see growing support for us in those communities, just as we’re seeing all over America.

Comprehensive immigration reform always includes blanket amnesty. And proponents will always deny that it means this.

 

[qwesley]

Carson takes the lead in IA in a couple of polls. Will Trump attack him?

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Carson takes the lead in IA in a couple of polls. Will Trump attack him?

Another outsider gaining grounds among Republicans. Think people might be trying to send a message?

 

[screwduke]

My goodness, the dude tweeted race stuff as he was driving away.

Not to mention the dude faxed a 23 page manifesto full of racism.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

Any proof that trumps a bigot? Or just typical left wing made up nonsense?

you serious Clark?

 

[Willy4UK]

Well, here's the thing that has me worried. Of the many. If the Repubs don't get someone who can unite the party and get some Dems, Libertarians, Inds, then it is going to look bleak when we get Shillary and 8 years of that bullshit and 8 years to replace any potential aging Conservative Supreme Court Justice. No resistance from a Liberal opinion. Think about that.

If Shillary gets 8, well we may be screwed. It'll be essentially a one party system with Repubs only showing up to "show" there is a "2-Party system". By then 8 years of her will pave the way for 8 more years.

 

[wkycatfan]

Since the primary is my chance to vote my conscience, I'm prolly gonna vote Carson if it the Kentucky primary were today. Almost seems like the AntiObama, which appeals to me.

 

[fuzz77]

Not to mention the dude faxed a 23 page manifesto full of racism.

You obviously didn't read the manifesto or have serious reading comprehension issues.
Yes, he wrote claiming to be a victim of racism...he also wrote about being attacked by black men. Says he was attacked for being gay. He had grievances with many people of all colors.
His cause was HIM, not his race. He was fk'd up for sure, even he knew so.

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

Who cares if hes a racist. Hes an idiot. A nobody. a failure as a man. A failure as a member of the human race. Same as the SC shooter who should have blown his brains out too.Bottom line, a POS killed innocent others because he was misreable with society. We should never speak their names. Thats why these douchebags do this...better to go out as a villian than a nobody.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Well, here's the thing that has me worried. Of the many. If the Repubs don't get someone who can unite the party and get some Dems, Libertarians, Inds, then it is going to look bleak when we get Shillary and 8 years of that bullshit and 8 years to replace any potential aging Conservative Supreme Court Justice. No resistance from a Liberal opinion. Think about that.

If Shillary gets 8, well we may be screwed. It'll be essentially a one party system with Repubs only showing up to "show" there is a "2-Party system". By then 8 years of her will pave the way for 8 more years.

Yep. If the Dems win this presidential election its over. Theyll grant amnesty to illegals, and we'll have dem presidents and congress people from here on. Running unchecked, itll be the end of the country.

 

[EastKYWildcat]

What are the pros and cons of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in the country and how do these stack up against those of blanket deportation?

I can see blanket amnesty, even if followed by immigration reform and tougher border security, providing some justification for immigrants to continue to enter the country illegally (which is the reality of our current state). Blanket deportation, while following the letter of our laws, destroys families, robs the country of a significant source of labor and tax revenue and sentences many of our neighbors in Mexico who are here to improve the lives their families to an impoverished existence. Can we justify their suffering on the basis that they aren't technically Americans? In the amoral fashion of the law, possibly. But on some personal level we must justify this to ourselves as well.

Conservatives and liberals will need to recognize that their principles and idealistic convictions need to constantly navigate against the currents of political and social realities. What common ground can be reached on this issue that doesn't involve blanket amnesty or deportation?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

What are the pros and cons of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in the country and how do these stack up against those of blanket deportation?

I can see blanket amnesty, even if followed by immigration reform and tougher border security, providing some justification for immigrants to continue to enter the country illegally (which is the reality of our current state). Blanket deportation, while following the letter of our laws, destroys families, robs the country of a significant source of labor and tax revenue and sentences many of our neighbors in Mexico who are here to improve the lives their families to an impoverished existence. Can we justify their suffering on the basis that they aren't technically Americans? In the amoral fashion of the law, possibly. But on some personal level we must justify this to ourselves as well.

Conservatives and liberals will need to recognize that their principles and idealistic convictions need to constantly navigate against the currents of political and social realities. What common ground can be reached on this issue that doesn't involve blanket amnesty or deportation?

All kinds of false propaganda in this post.

The "neighbors from Mexico" who are here illegally can still come after deportation. Theyre more than welcome. Just do it legally. Doesnt require becoming a citizen either. So dont act like people are promoting throwing them out and locking the door.

It would rob the country of a source of labor. A source of illegal labor. This could be easily rectified by being here legally.

It doesnt rob the US of tax revenue. Some illegals pay taxes by requesting an FEIN. But most dont. Even more, illegals are a gigantic drag on our healthcare system. Its absolutely a net negative.

Not technically americans? Theyre not americans. Period.

Blanket deportation is unrealistic. But there needs to be effort. If an illegal is located, identify and deport them. The end. Then drill every single person/business employing an illegal. That will remove a large motivating factor for coming over. Work towards amending/clarifying the 14th amendment so that it does not apply to children born to illegals. That was never the intent of the amendment anyway.

To think there are literally millions of people here in this country, undocumented, with no way of identifying them should terrify every American. Its a matter of sovereignty and national security.

 

[Deeeefense]

Well, here's the thing that has me worried. Of the many. If the Repubs don't get someone who can unite the party and get some Dems, Libertarians, Inds, then it is going to look bleak when we get Shillary and 8 years of that bullshit and 8 years to replace any potential aging Conservative Supreme Court Justice. No resistance from a Liberal opinion. Think about that.

If Shillary gets 8, well we may be screwed. It'll be essentially a one party system with Repubs only showing up to "show" there is a "2-Party system". By then 8 years of her will pave the way for 8 more years.

The problem is Shillary's approval numbers are melting away faster than an Alaskan glacier. By the time Trey Gowdy get's finished with her, Anthony Weiner will look like a better alternative.

Who does that leave for the Dems? Sanders is a good speaker but he's wearing the Albatross of "socialist" around his neck. If he were to win the nomination, we would see non stop attack ads with Castro/Sanders on a split screen with similar quotes. Ole Joe is 73 and probably won't run, and O'Malley can't move the needle. By all accounts the Dems looked like they are screwed until you realize they will be running against an egomaniac/car salesman/TV evangelist/stand up comedian composite.

I bet Nat Silver is pulling his hair out over this one.

 

[EastKYWildcat]

All kinds of false propaganda in this post.

The "neighbors from Mexico" who are here illegally can still come after deportation. Theyre more than welcome. Just do it legally. Doesnt require becoming a citizen either. So dont act like people are promoting throwing them out and locking the door.

It would rob the country of a source of labor. A source of illegal labor. This could be easily rectified by being here legally.

It doesnt rob the US of tax revenue. Some illegals pay taxes by requesting an FEIN. But most dont. Even more, illegals are a gigantic drag on our healthcare system. Its absolutely a net negative.

Not technically americans? Theyre not americans. Period.

Blanket deportation is unrealistic. But there needs to be effort. If an illegal is located, identify and deport them. The end. Then drill every single person/business employing an illegal. That will remove a large motivating factor for coming over. Work towards amending/clarifying the 14th amendment so that it does not apply to children born to illegals. That was never the intent of the amendment anyway.

To think there are literally millions of people here in this country, undocumented, with no way of identifying them should terrify every American. Its a matter of sovereignty and national security.

Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, and are not a net negative on government revenue. http://www.txcumc.org/files/fileslibrary/mythsandrealities.pdf

The rest I can agree to disagree on. I can see why many absolutely want current laws to be followed (except our 14th amendment), but I believe it would be a much easier, less expensive, and less morally reprehensible solution to grant amnesty then strengthen border security and reform the immigration process. I'm not a fan of illegal immigration since I believe our laws should be respected and they should have to go through the same hoops everyone else does to get here, but if the economic argument is what is important, deportation and the punishing of businesses currently utilizing illegal labor will be much more detrimental to our economy than allowing illegals currently in the country to become citizens.

As a tangentially related subject, how do you feel about the second amendment, since the original intent of the founders (James Madison) was to respond to the four state conventions who wished that state militias should be utilized instead of a national army? This right was a derivative right subject to service in the militia, not an unlimited right as it has since been defined.

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Also, I'm not convinced on the vague national security argument. We've been priority number one for terrorists organizations for almost two decades, and the lack of border security has not mattered in that regard much since 9/11. Self-radicalization of current US citizens is much more of a concern.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, and are not a net negative on government revenue. http://www.txcumc.org/files/fileslibrary/mythsandrealities.pdf

The rest I can agree to disagree on. I can see why many absolutely want current laws to be followed (except our 14th amendment), but I believe it would be a much easier, less expensive, and less morally reprehensible solution to grant amnesty then strengthen border security and reform the immigration process. I'm not a fan of illegal immigration since I believe our laws should be respected and they should have to go through the same hoops everyone else does to get here, but if the economic argument is what is important, deportation and the punishing of businesses currently utilizing illegal labor will be much more detrimental to our economy than allowing illegals currently in the country to become citizens.

As a tangentially related subject, how do you feel about the second amendment, since the original intent of the founders (James Madison) was to respond to the four state conventions who wished that state militias should be utilized instead of a national army? This right was a derivative right subject to service in the militia, not an unlimited right as it has since been defined.

I shouldve clarified that and thought about editing after I posted it. Yes, they do provide revenue in that some call and obtain an FEIN for the purposes of paying taxes. But many of them are also huge drains in other areas, such as healthcare. Not to mention all the benefits their kids receive. So overall, its a net negative financial impact.

From what I recall, the 2nd amendment was for 2 main purposes. 1) allow their to be a civilian militia, if needed and 2) allow the citizens to protect themselves from an oppressive government. The 2nd was a concept held dear, since they won their freedom with force.

There are 2 main differences between the 2nd amendment and that portion of the 14th. 1) The intent of the 2nd amendment is still alive and well. Whereas the intent of the citizenship was never intended to grant citizenship to anyone here illegally. 2) The 2nd amendment provisions have been challenged again and again, and upheld. Wheres that portion of the 14th has never been challenged that im aware of.

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

What about the criminals and gang members entering the country?

 

[EastKYWildcat]

I shouldve clarified that and thought about editing after I posted it. Yes, they do provide revenue in that some call and obtain an FEIN for the purposes of paying taxes. But many of them are also huge drains in other areas, such as healthcare. Not to mention all the benefits their kids receive. So overall, its a net negative financial impact.

From what I recall, the 2nd amendment was for 2 main purposes. 1) allow their to be a civilian militia, if needed and 2) allow the citizens to protect themselves from an oppressive government. The 2nd was a concept held dear, since they won their freedom with force.

There are 2 main differences between the 2nd amendment and that portion of the 14th. 1) The intent of the 2nd amendment is still alive and well. Whereas the intent of the citizenship was never intended to grant citizenship to anyone here illegally. 2) The 2nd amendment provisions have been challenged again and again, and upheld. Wheres that portion of the 14th has never been challenged that im aware of.

The sources I've googled seem to say illegal immigrants provide more revenue for the government than they use in government services, but I wonder if blanket amnesty would increase this revenue further. I can't find anything on that.

With regards to the second amendment, the entire bill of rights was solely written in order to appease all the states proposing amendments to the constitution, when they were really supposed to be voting up or down for ratification. The delegates at the constitutional convention should have created a bill of rights initially, but they were tired and wanted to go home at the end of deliberations.

Madison told the states that wanted to amend rather than ratify or reject to stfu initially because an up or down vote put the federalists at a significant advantage politically. No one wanted to go back to the articles. But he acquiesced and said they could recommend changes. He whittled the 200+ recommendations into the first ten amendments. Four of the states requested that national defense be in the hands of state militias rather than a national army (there was lingering apprehension about any consolidation of power in the federal government). That alone is what Madison was responding to with the second amendment.

DC vs. Heller back in 2008 was 5-4 with Scalia writing the majority opinion. They decided that the second amendment was virtually an unlimited right, and not a derivative right which is what Madison intended it to be. The opinion did not even mention Madison, all of this being ironic considering Scalia is a strict constructionist operating under original intent. I just rambled on for awhile, but point being I'm not too fond of the strict constructionist school of thought, but it would be nice to get some consistency from people who are such as Scalia.

 

[fuzz77]

The "neighbors from Mexico" who are here illegally can still come after deportation. Theyre more than welcome. Just do it legally.

Under current law it is nearly impossible for a Mexican or Central American laborer to come here and get a green card to legally work. The only exception to that rule are those who are seasonal agricultural workers.

I knew a Mexican painter who was trying to do it legally. It took him 5 years to get a guest worker visa that allowed him to work in the US for only a few months before he had to return home. The entire time he was trying to get the proper permits to immigrate here legally. As of my last contact with him he was 15 years into that process still waiting on that visa.

Most do come here "legally". They pass through one of the many border crossings just as you or I can do into Mexico. It is no crime for Mexicans to come visit the US. What they aren't supposed to do without proper documents, is work.

 

[Willy4UK]

I knew a Mexican painter who was trying to do it legally.

So what you are saying is if I am reading this correctly. You have inside information on an illegal alien? Where does this "painter" live? I'd like to make a phone call to the FBI.

 

[WettCat]

I'm guessing the FBI doesn't need a lot of help identifying illegal aliens......probably not the hardest task they've ever faced.

 

[warrior-cat]

"DC vs. Heller back in 2008 was 5-4 with Scalia writing the majority opinion. They decided that the second amendment was virtually an unlimited right, and not a derivative right which is what Madison intended it to be. The opinion did not even mention Madison, all of this being ironic considering Scalia is a strict constructionist operating under original intent. I just rambled on for awhile, but point being I'm not too fond of the strict constructionist school of thought, but it would be nice to get some consistency from people who are such as Scalia."

The problem with statements like this is that it is an interpretation of what you or whoever you got your thoughts from believe the intent was. If what you say about Scalia is true "strict constructionist", would that not be more in line with what he thought the intent was?

 

[Bill Cosby]

It shocks and saddens me that we don't hand out visas like candy to unskilled laborers who do what any housewife can do in her spare time.

The man was a PAINTER.

It honestly doesn't matter whether he paints pictures or paints houses. What value does he bring to the United States? From high school student to unemployed junkie, anyone ALREADY IN THIS COUNTRY LEGALLY can do that job. Why on earth would we bring another person in to take a job from someone so that we can piss away more money on the unemployed?