Insanity of the Left

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Will they let you get your name onto the ballot as "Ur Dead"?

[kevinswatch]

Perhaps if your legal name was "Ur Dead"? How could they stop you?

I'd vote for "Mr. Dead".

-jay

[kevinswatch]

Well what do you know. Apparently the whole "political correctness" story is a sham.

www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/republi ... index.html

Reality Check: Cruz, Fiorina and Huckabee claim social media checks were prohibited or willfully ignored in visa cases

By Laura Koran, CNN

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: "It's not a lack of competence that is preventing the Obama administration from stopping these attacks. It is political correctness. We didn't monitor the Facebook posting of the female San Bernardino terrorist because the Obama DHS thought it would be inappropriate. She made a public call to jihad and they didn't target it."

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina: "The bureaucratic processes that have been in place since 9/11 are inadequate, as well. What do we now know? That DHS vets people by going into databases of known or suspected terrorists. And yet, we also know that ISIS is recruiting who are not in those databases. So of course, we're going to miss them. And then we now learn that DHS says, "No, we can't check their social media." For heaven's sake, every parent in America is checking social media and every employer is as well. The government can't do it? The bureaucratic procedures are so far behind."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: "I just want to make sure that everything we use is going to be effective. We're spending billions of dollars, let's make sure it's effective. Let's use every tool, but let's also check out the Facebook posts, let's look at Twitter accounts. My gosh, we were told we couldn't do it because it might invade somebody's privacy. This lady who came over here and shot up San Bernardino was posting things on Facebook, yet, we were restricted from looking."

CNN Reality Check Team: There is no State Department policy prohibiting social media checks by consular officers, who interview prospective visa recipients and make the final call on whether they qualify for a visa, State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters Monday.

These consular officers are free to check any and all publicly available information on an applicant, including their social media postings.

That said, they aren't required to do so with every applicant.

The Department of Homeland Security -- which runs background checks on foreign applicants as part of the interagency process -- also allows social media checks, but again, they aren't required. In fact, in recent months the United States has begun to take steps to review social media postings of visa applicants from certain countries.

The value of these social media searches is limited, since terrorist sympathizers can conceal their identities online or use privacy settings to hide their posts.

In fact, San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik obscured her identity when making pro-jihad comments on social media sites and used enhanced security settings, U.S. law enforcement officials told CNN this week.

Some of Malik's postings were only visible to a small group of friends, which runs in direct contrast to Cruz's suggestion that Malik made the statements publicly.

Verdict: False

-jay

[Orlion]

I stand by my laughing emoticons at the idea that Republicans are any better suited for stopping terrorism than Democrats. I have seen no evidence otherwise.





-jay

If we look at the numbers, they are actually worse.

I'd take Obama's twenty+ victims of terrorism over Bush's 2000+ victims of terrorism any day.


Also, a stupid story that sounds like it's tailored specifically to make you think X is a stupid story that's tailored specifically to make you think X? Shocking!

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I'd take Obama's twenty+ victims of terrorism over Bush's 2000+ victims of terrorism any day.

Will you also take all the innocent civilians Mr. Obama's drone policy has killed in places like Pakistan, a country which never attacked us in any way? A drone policy which, by the way, presumes that people are militants without very scant evidence (and sometimes no evidence whatsoever).

Don't defend the drone program with "but Bush started it" because that is already a matter of record. Just because Mr. Bush did something doesn't mean that Mr. Obama has to keep doing it--he could have stopped the drone program any time he wanted to with only a handful of phone calls. Part of his original campaign slogan was "change", a promise upon which he failed to deliver.

At least now I know why the "can't look at social media" thing didn't seem to make sense--someone was mistaken.

[Avatar]

At the practical end, there's really not much difference no matter who "runs" the country. The same sort of stuff carries on happening.

--A

[Vraith]

I'd take Obama's twenty+ victims of terrorism over Bush's 2000+ victims of terrorism any day.

Here's a very funny, in a very scary way, thing:
Right now, nearly half the country is very or somewhat worried that a relative/acquaintance could be killed by a terrorist attack.

Now, the real odds of getting killed in the U.S. by terror are extremely low.
And worry/stress kills.
So we are in a position where your chances of dying from being afraid of terrorists is higher than your chance of dying from an actual terrorist act.

This insane lefty thinks that is hysterical.

Trump and the other fear-mongering candidates are killing more people by terror than terrorists.
[[that might be slightly hypberbolic---but it should be far more distant from factual than it is. It should be ridiculous/absurd. But it isn't.]]

And that's it for me, folks. The other mods already know, but I won't be around much, if at all, at least for a while.

It's been a lot of fun---
But I gotta go.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We will leave the light on for you, Vraith. Take all the time you need.

I don't worry about terror attacks. I face much more danger every time I drive to or from work.

[ussusimiel]

Best of luck, Vraith! Come back anytime you think you have something new to say!

u.

[Avatar]

Better hurry back...we're waiting up for you.

I don't worry about terror attacks. I face much more danger every time I drive to or from work.

Exactly.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Ted Cruz canceled his visit to the Bronx Lighthouse College Preparatory Academy because students there threatened to walk out over political differences they have with the Republican candidate.

I would not have canceled the visit, myself. I would have shown up, noted the lack of students, then make some public comments about how the Left acts like spoiled little brats. Rather than politely listen to someone else's point of view they scurry like roaches when you turn the light on in the kitchen at 2 in the morning. Apparently these students have not been taught that disagreement is one of the foundations of politics--not everyone has to agree with you all the time.

Ironically, the Preparatory Academy isn't preparing its students very well. They have been taught to run away rather than face differing opinions.

One student called Ted Cruz, "misogynistic, homophobic, and racist". Although not a Cruz supporter, myself, I would nevertheless call that student "ignorant, cowardly, and lazy".

[Zarathustra]

It's definitely a pattern, isn't it Hashi? It goes beyond students simply walking out. They have successfully blocked numerous conservatives and republicans from speaking at universities. It's intolerance and un-American.

Calling political advisories "misogynistic, homophobic, racist" is the new hate speech. It's not about stopping these deplorable attitudes, it's about stopping Republicans from gaining power.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It wasn't all that long ago here in Texas when a highly-contested bill was coming up for a vote so in an effort to stop the House from being able to have a quorum some legislators packed themselves into a couple of cars and drove to Oklahoma. They figured "out of State equals out of reach and without us they can't vote". The legislators in question? Every single one of them were registered Democrats. Really? Seriously? You can't win so you try to stop the vote by running away? That sounds like something a 13-year-old does when you restrict their phone/computer use because they aren't doing their homework or keeping up with the household chores. "My parents hate me so I am just going to run away to my friend's house."

In this day and age of "safe zones" do you know what I will do if I see someone setting up a "safe zone"? I will politely ask them what words or thoughts they are trying to keep themselves safe from, leave, go make a couple of large posters, write down those very words or ideas, then come back and set up my own "safe zone" near them so they can see what I wrote. "Safe zone" my ass. You don't get to have a safe zone. There is no such thing as a "safe zone". If an idea or a word makes you uncomfortable then the problem is not the idea or the word; rather, the problem is you and you need to get over it.

Truthfully, I should put the rest of this rant in the "insanity of the right" thread but I don't feel like hunting it down right now. To those of you on the Right...not everyone shares your dislike of people with differing lifestyles so quit trying to enact stupid things like "bathroom laws". Your blind devotion to "trickle down" economics and the notion that we can improve the quality of the world if we just let the government do whatever it wants in regards to terrorism will ruin--are currently ruining--this country as surely as if a foreign invader had landed on the beaches.

Seriously--if both sides keep becoming more polarized and more hateful towards the other then eventually we will reach a breaking point and by then it will be too late to do anything about it. Some people say "I don't want to say 'I told you so' but I told you so". I am not like those people. I don't mind saying "I told you so". Then again, I relish being correct (sometimes I relish it a little too much).

[Avatar]

I've been wondering about that breaking point for years...I suspect it's a lot higher than people think.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No, what really happens is that most people, especially citizens of the United States, are cowards. They would rather linger in a state of prolonged angst and agony, worrying about how bad or out-of-control the other side is getting, worrying about terrorism and trying to stay safe, and/or worrying about some other trivial bullshit that ultimately doesn't mean anything. As I have stated before, what we have in the United States is a failed, loveless marriage but neither spouse has the wherewithal to go file for divorce. The thrill is gone, the love is gone, the romance is gone, and all you are left with when you get home from work is generic small talk (hi honey, how was your day? erm, the same as every other day at work, obviously). You despise the situation but when you seriously consider getting a lawyer you start looking at all the ways following through on it would negatively impact your life--missing work because you have to go meet with the lawyer, digging through old boxes or computer files looking for assets that need to be declared, renting a storage unit to stash your stuff until you can *ugh* rent a one-bedroom apartment, and so on and so forth. Both sides want the other side to call it quits first but unlike old-school, Cold War MAD (a game where the first person to blink loses) our political situation is like a stalemate in chess--neither side is clearly winning and has no winning move but neither side can put the other side in checkmate, either. The game goes on and on, moving the pieces between one or two positions before returning to the starting position again. Unlike the computer's conclusion from War Games that the only winning move is not to play, in this game the only winning move is to quit, which is a paradox.

History tell us, though, that once a political system or national entity has entered into a state of equilibrium the system will change only due to an external shock. The ironic part is this: the shock to the system will be worse than obtaining the political divorce.

[Avatar]

I dunno...that threshold is high. The angst and agony are nowhere near as strong as they like to claim in their complaints. Despite it all, y'all have it pretty good.

It takes really bad conditions for at least a large percentage of the population for things to even start getting close to something like that.

Hell, for years I expected the Zimbabweans would do it, given the levels of corruption, hyper-inflation, food shortages etc. But they didn't. If they're not prepared to do it under those conditions, the chances of you guys doing it under immeasurably better ones is pretty slim I think.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We are on the same page there. The problem is that Americans have a level of complacency so endemic that by the time conditions have deteriorated to the point where enough of my fellow citizens finally decide to get up and demand that something be done, mere politics will the the least of our worries.

[Avatar]

I've often thought Shakespeare got it wrong in Henry VI...it should be the politicians, not the lawyers.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Lol, Bruce Springsteen denies service in NC b/c of his conscience. Bryan Adams denies service in MS as well.

Vanity Fair says about Springsteen denial:

While local trans people and advocates nationwide have praised Springsteen's principled stand

HuffPo: "What do you call what Bruce Springsteen did?

A good start. Followed by Bryan Adams, who canceled a concert in Mississippi. Followed by... no one. Yet. So more big-name musicians must step forward"

Lol, the left supporting businesses to deny service based on conscience. Who woulda thunk it?!?!

Also from the HuffPo moron: "Soon there may be many more states where white men who revere a past that never was will create a future that never should be - states where women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and anyone else white men happen not to like have no legal protection against discrimination, arrest and prison." So, we don't care that blacks and Hispanics tend to be more socially conservative than whites - why do facts matter? And of course, not allowing men to use women's bathrooms means one wants blacks arrested.

This is beyond insanity.

BTW, from NJ.com, "But the state law went far beyond the bathroom issue, establishing a statewide anti-discrimination law that limits the recognized classes for discrimination to "race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap."" Only one thing on the list there sticks out. And I get there's a reason, religious freedom was a driving factor in this country's foundation. But it is still the only item on the list where people actually make decisions, do something. The rest are just descriptions (leaving out the fact that many people say '<insert religion>' and it's really just a description for them as well - doesn't mean anything). Anyway, I've said before, I'm not sure why the govt thinks it should protect certain behaviors/lifestyles/decisions. It allows idiots to say if you don't want men using women's bathrooms, you want black people arrested.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Lol, the left supporting businesses to deny service based on conscience. Who woulda thunk it?!?!

When other people do this they say things like "backwards", "reactionary", "bigoted", or "racist". When they do it they say things like "social justice", "inclusion", or "open-mindedness".

It is a shame that they are so subjective in their classifications of people and their actions.