Let's talk Moore

[Just_A_Guy]

35 minutes ago, JoCa said:

?? Sometimes I wonder if people truly don't read.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/27/blowback-clinton-campaign-planned-to-fire-me-over-email-probe-obama-intel-watchdog-says.html

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (i.e. the head of the IC that investigates cases of waste, fraud, abuse, ethical concerns, etc) reports that the Clinton Campaign directly threatened his job (he was an Obama appointee!) if the e-mail thing didn't go the "right way"

Asked what would have happened to him if he had done such a thing(i.e. the same thing as Clinton), McCullough said: “I'd be sitting in Leavenworth right now.”

The only people who can't see what Clinton did was a most likely a crime at least worthy of a jury are individuals with their own personal biases who can't seem to read an investigate.  

Huge difference between an unsubstantiated (he said/she said) accusation of something that happened 40 years ago that has never been reported previously and the most powerful political family in modern history making threats to ensure an investigation only goes one way.  From the FBI calling it a "matter", to Comey drafting the exoneration e-mail months prior to this . . .she is guilty as sin.  

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

:-). 

Of course, I was responding to @anatess2‘s praise of the concept of “innocence until proven guilty” in the electoral arena.  The questions this begs—and the issues I was hinting at, apparently too subtly—are, *what* constitutes “proof”; and *who* gets to decide whether that burden has been met.  A plurality of Americans last year decided that Clinton’s alleged malfeasance was *not* a bar to her holding office.  That doesn’t (and shouldn’t) stop the rest of us from concluding that she is indeed guilty of unethical/illegal behavior—which is precisely my point.  The implicit suggestion that we ought to wait for an adjudication of guilt by some formal inquisitorial body before drawing our own conclusions as to the guilt of the accused—either in Clinton’s case, or in Moore’s—is clearly nonsense.  

This isn’t about Moore’s right to due process; it’s about some Republicans not really caring, at the end of the day, whether Moore tried to get lucky with a fourteen-year-old.  And those same Republicans are now spouting canards about due process that they don’t really believe, in a desperate attempt to get the rest of us to shut up.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This isn’t about Moore’s right to due process; it’s about some Republicans not really caring, at the end of the day, whether Moore tried to get lucky with a fourteen-year-old.  And those same Republicans are now spouting canards about due process that they don’t really believe, in a desperate attempt to get the rest of us to shut up.

Are we in agreement . . .can I put up my Carlton happy dance again?? :-).

I agree, at the end of the day if true, it raises some very serious questions. 

However, if true 40 years is a very long time . . . Alma the Younger did a lot of great things even though he did some real bad stuff when he was young.  I don't think it automatically disqualifies him, people do and can change . . .that is the whole point of the gospel . . .but I'd certainly want to see a good bit of evidence that he did change.

I don't think it's true at all . . . but if it is true he has got a pretty long track record of doing the right things (i.e. no serious allegations after 1977-1979) and that counts for something in my book. 

[JoCa]

Meanwhile, in the real world . . .

http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/somali-refugee-who-raped-2-u-s-women-at-knifepoint-walks-free/

All the bleeding heart Mormons who want blood over accusations that happened 40 years ago (and think they are so enlightened by sharing the most recent video about all the bad white people who won't help the beat up dude but oh my goodness the amazing wonderful Muslim woman is so, so much better), just calmly encourage this trash to come into this country.

In the actual case of sexual assault. . .oh the guy walks . . .he should have been thrown out of the country!! 

I swear we must be stupid as a nation and deserve to commit cultural suicide . . .take in a bunch of Muslim refugees from a war-torn nation that have absolutely 0 cultural ties to this country, haven't a clue as to what it is like to actually live in a civilized society . . .we bring them here, they get government checks, rape our women and then we just say . . .yeah that's okay I guess you learned your lesson, please stay you are such a wonderful addition to this Nation!! Blooming morons . . .

What a piece of scum . . .should have been kicked out. 

And this is very much in line with what I've actually observed . . .people go nuts over allegations of very minor sexual things but when it comes to an actual conviction of someone who did really bad things . . ."well he was just a poor refugee who didn't know any better". . . sick, sick, sick.

"His mother, Zahra Mohammed, (pictured in 2012 ) refused to believe the crimes he'd pleaded guilty to and even blamed his victims, saying her son was set up or taken advantage of by older women. Mohammed moved to the US in 2010 with his family. Less than 12 months later he committed the first heinous rape. "

That's a real winner of a family there, we should just import more of them!!! :-) :-) . . .

I swear bunch of beta males running this county . . . and this is what happens when the men don't stand up and be men to actually defend their women, their homes, their nations.  This is why matriarchal/feminist societies get toasted.

Any alpha male understands letting a totally foreign population with 0 cultural ties into your civilization is a recipe for disaster, but b/c the current world is run by a bunch of pansies, standing up and saying the truth gets you labeled as "bigoted, racists, sexists" etc. etc. etc.  At least Trump is an alpha . . . 

Edited November 29, 2017 by JoCa

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Of course, I was responding to @anatess2‘s praise of the concept of “innocence until proven guilty” in the electoral arena.  The questions this begs—and the issues I was hinting at, apparently too subtly—are, *what* constitutes “proof”; and *who* gets to decide whether that burden has been met.  A plurality of Americans last year decided that Clinton’s alleged malfeasance was *not* a bar to her holding office.  That doesn’t (and shouldn’t) stop the rest of us from concluding that she is indeed guilty of unethical/illegal behavior—which is precisely my point.  The implicit suggestion that we ought to wait for an adjudication of guilt by some formal inquisitorial body before drawing our own conclusions as to the guilt of the accused—either in Clinton’s case, or in Moore’s—is clearly nonsense.  

This isn’t about Moore’s right to due process; it’s about some Republicans not really caring, at the end of the day, whether Moore tried to get lucky with a fourteen-year-old.  And those same Republicans are now spouting canards about due process that they don’t really believe, in a desperate attempt to get the rest of us to shut up.

Who sets the bar?  The courts.  The problem with the Clintons is they own the Justice Dept and the press provides cover.  Hence... drain the swamp.  Neither Roy Moore nor the GOP own the courts and the media is out to skewer them.

Now, who protects the innocent in the electoral arena?  Nobody seems like.  Unless you're a Democrat.

Edited November 29, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

Are we in agreement . . .can I put up my Carlton happy dance again?? :-).

I agree, at the end of the day if true, it raises some very serious questions. 

However, if true 40 years is a very long time . . . Alma the Younger did a lot of great things even though he did some real bad stuff when he was young.  I don't think it automatically disqualifies him, people do and can change . . .that is the whole point of the gospel . . .but I'd certainly want to see a good bit of evidence that he did change.

I don't think it's true at all . . . but if it is true he has got a pretty long track record of doing the right things (i.e. no serious allegations after 1977-1979) and that counts for something in my book. 

Yeah, I think upthread I suggested that Moore’s best strategy (assuming the whole thing were true) would be to say “as gosh is my witness, I thought she was sixteen” and move forward—he’d still come off as a creeper; but probably preferable electorally to his democrat opponent.  But, by denying everything, he has foreclosed that route.  At this stage, assuming he is guilty—penitence and denial are simply incompatible.

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

Meanwhile, in the real world . . .

http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/somali-refugee-who-raped-2-u-s-women-at-knifepoint-walks-free/

All the bleeding heart Mormons who want blood over accusations that happened 40 years ago (and think they are so enlightened by sharing the most recent video about all the bad white people who won't help the beat up dude but oh my goodness the amazing wonderful Muslim woman is so, so much better), just calmly encourage this trash to come into this country.

In the actual case of sexual assault. . .oh the guy walks . . .he should have been thrown out of the country!! 

I swear we must be stupid as a nation and deserve to commit cultural suicide . . .take in a bunch of Muslim refugees from a war-torn nation that have absolutely 0 cultural ties to this country, haven't a clue as to what it is like to actually live in a civilized society . . .we bring them here, they get government checks, rape our women and then we just say . . .yeah that's okay I guess you learned your lesson, please stay you are such a wonderful addition to this Nation!! Blooming morons . . .

What a piece of scum . . .should have been kicked out. 

And this is very much in line with what I've actually observed . . .people go nuts over allegations of very minor sexual things but when it comes to an actual conviction of someone who did really bad things . . ."well he was just a poor refugee who didn't know any better". . . sick, sick, sick.

"His mother, Zahra Mohammed, (pictured in 2012 ) refused to believe the crimes he'd pleaded guilty to and even blamed his victims, saying her son was set up or taken advantage of by older women. Mohammed moved to the US in 2010 with his family. Less than 12 months later he committed the first heinous rape. "

That's a real winner of a family there, we should just import more of them!!! :-) :-) . . .

I swear bunch of beta males running this county . . . and this is what happens when the men don't stand up and be men to actually defend their women, their homes, their nations.  This is why matriarchal/feminist societies get toasted.

Any alpha male understands letting a totally foreign population with 0 cultural ties into your civilization is a recipe for disaster, but b/c the current world is run by a bunch of pansies, standing up and saying the truth gets you labeled as "bigoted, racists, sexists" etc. etc. etc.  At least Trump is an alpha . . . 

This was a pretty revolting case, and I really can’t understand why this dirtbag wasn’t deported posthaste.  His story, too, is a textbook example of the hazards of inferior vetting of immigrants (dude thought this was normal and/or was traumatized because his behavior was par for the course in the war-torn Hadeshole he came from).  I’m glad he was apparently (time will tell for sure) “rehabilitated” by the system rather than thrown into prison and allowed to harden, but . . . Do we have to keep him?

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Who sets the bar?  The courts.  The problem with the Clintons is they own the Justice Dept and the press provides cover.  Hence... drain the swamp.  Neither Roy Moore nor the GOP own the courts and the media is out to skewer them.

Now, who protects the innocent in the electoral arena?  Nobody seems like.  Unless you're a Democrat.

That’s just it.  One facile “well, the other guys control the courts”, and we’re perfectly comfortable keeping right on believing what we want to believe regardless of what the actual verdict was.  So, no, we really aren’t all that sincerely  concerned about learning truth by letting the judicial process play out; we’re just trying to buy time for our boy.

Even if Moore were actually convicted, his fans would be reaching for the “biased courts” trope even faster than  Roddy Duterte’s jackbooted goons can reach for for the meth they plant on their victims’ bodies. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

Are we in agreement . . .can I put up my Carlton happy dance again?? :-).

I agree, at the end of the day if true, it raises some very serious questions. 

However, if true 40 years is a very long time . . . Alma the Younger did a lot of great things even though he did some real bad stuff when he was young.  I don't think it automatically disqualifies him, people do and can change . . .that is the whole point of the gospel . . .but I'd certainly want to see a good bit of evidence that he did change.

I don't think it's true at all . . . but if it is true he has got a pretty long track record of doing the right things (i.e. no serious allegations after 1977-1979) and that counts for something in my book. 

Yeah, I think upthread I suggested that Moore’s best strategy (assuming the whole thing were true) would be to say “as gosh is my witness, I thought she was sixteen” and move forward—he’d still come off as a creeper; but probably preferable electorally to his democrat opponent.  But, by denying everything, he has foreclosed that route.  At this stage, assuming he is guilty—penitence and denial are simply incompatible.

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

Meanwhile, in the real world . . .

http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/somali-refugee-who-raped-2-u-s-women-at-knifepoint-walks-free/

All the bleeding heart Mormons who want blood over accusations that happened 40 years ago (and think they are so enlightened by sharing the most recent video about all the bad white people who won't help the beat up dude but oh my goodness the amazing wonderful Muslim woman is so, so much better), just calmly encourage this trash to come into this country.

In the actual case of sexual assault. . .oh the guy walks . . .he should have been thrown out of the country!! 

I swear we must be stupid as a nation and deserve to commit cultural suicide . . .take in a bunch of Muslim refugees from a war-torn nation that have absolutely 0 cultural ties to this country, haven't a clue as to what it is like to actually live in a civilized society . . .we bring them here, they get government checks, rape our women and then we just say . . .yeah that's okay I guess you learned your lesson, please stay you are such a wonderful addition to this Nation!! Blooming morons . . .

What a piece of scum . . .should have been kicked out. 

And this is very much in line with what I've actually observed . . .people go nuts over allegations of very minor sexual things but when it comes to an actual conviction of someone who did really bad things . . ."well he was just a poor refugee who didn't know any better". . . sick, sick, sick.

"His mother, Zahra Mohammed, (pictured in 2012 ) refused to believe the crimes he'd pleaded guilty to and even blamed his victims, saying her son was set up or taken advantage of by older women. Mohammed moved to the US in 2010 with his family. Less than 12 months later he committed the first heinous rape. "

That's a real winner of a family there, we should just import more of them!!! :-) :-) . . .

I swear bunch of beta males running this county . . . and this is what happens when the men don't stand up and be men to actually defend their women, their homes, their nations.  This is why matriarchal/feminist societies get toasted.

Any alpha male understands letting a totally foreign population with 0 cultural ties into your civilization is a recipe for disaster, but b/c the current world is run by a bunch of pansies, standing up and saying the truth gets you labeled as "bigoted, racists, sexists" etc. etc. etc.  At least Trump is an alpha . . . 

This was a pretty revolting case, and I really can’t understand why this dirtbag wasn’t deported posthaste.  His story, too, is a textbook example of the hazards of inferior vetting of immigrants (dude thought this was normal and/or was traumatized because his behavior was par for the course in the war-torn Hadeshole he came from).  I’m glad he was apparently (time will tell for sure) “rehabilitated” by the system rather than thrown into prison and allowed to harden, but . . . Do we have to keep him?

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Who sets the bar?  The courts.  The problem with the Clintons is they own the Justice Dept and the press provides cover.  Hence... drain the swamp.  Neither Roy Moore nor the GOP own the courts and the media is out to skewer them.

Now, who protects the innocent in the electoral arena?  Nobody seems like.  Unless you're a Democrat.

That’s just it.  One facile “well, the other guys control the courts”, and we’re perfectly comfortable keeping right on believing what we want to believe regardless of what the actual verdict was.  So, no, we really aren’t all that sincerely  concerned about learning truth by letting the judicial process play out; we’re just trying to buy time for our boy.

Even if Moore were actually convicted, his fans would be reaching for the “biased courts” trope even faster than  Roddy Duterte’s jackbooted goons can reach for for the meth they plant on their victims’ bodies. 

[JoCa]

30 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, I think upthread I suggested that Moore’s best strategy (assuming the whole thing were true) would be to say “as gosh is my witness, I thought she was sixteen” and move forward—he’d still come off as a creeper; but probably preferable electorally to his democrat opponent.  But, by denying everything, he has foreclosed that route.  At this stage, assuming he is guilty—penitence and denial are simply incompatible.

This was a pretty revolting case, and I really can’t understand why this dirtbag wasn’t deported posthaste.  His story, too, is a textbook example of the hazards of inferior vetting of immigrants (dude thought this was normal and/or was traumatized because his behavior was par for the course in the war-torn Hadeshole he came from).  I’m glad he was apparently (time will tell for sure) “rehabilitated” by the system rather than thrown into prison and allowed to harden, but . . . Do we have to keep him?

I agree again . . .happy dance :-). On a serious note; I do appreciate the more cordial tone JAG.

Another sidenote; the Muslim rape case is one of the reasons why Trump was elected and for MAGA . . .obviously not that exact case, but for instances like it.  The "silent majority" shall we say had enough of the Royals and their crap . . .it's something that unfortunately NeverTrumpers (and I don't mean this derogatorily) could never see. The silent majority had enough of selling America and our Culture down the tubes towards multi-culturalism and one-world crap.  

And to pick on you a little bit [but not much ;-)] . . . you mention the hazards of "inferior vetting", I'd like to know what "vetting" exactly could be done to prevent this scumbag from getting here? I mean . . .what does that exactly look like?  There is no series of questions or "background" checks that one could have given this kid at 13 or his family to have prevented them from getting here.

The only thing that would work is to never let them (i.e. 3rd world Muslim refugees) get here in the first place

Do you have questions like "Have you or any of your close family members been a victim of sexual assault?"  For starters, they probably wouldn't even recognize the question or even understand what you mean when you say "sexual assault".  Then if you asked that type of a question, the lefties would be all up in arms about how bigoted of a person you are b/c you even dare to ask the question. Then, once you start asking the question, people will wisen up and just lie and say no (even if the real answer is yes) just to get in. Finally, all the bleeding heart liberal Mormons will scream bloody murder b/c if you didn't let in any refugees who had been a victim of sexual assault or of a criminal assault, you wouldn't be letting any of them in.

When people in this country finally start coming to their senses and recognize that in many places in the world. . . especially 3rd world Muslim countries, sexual assaults, rape, theft, murder, crime, etc. are a way of life and that letting in the slums of the 3rd world into this country will eventually make it a slum, only then can we start to solve the problem.  

What we have in the United States in way of culture, respect for life, laws, liberty, etc. is actually really pretty dang special and the only way it will continue that way is if we protect it.

Letting in the slums of the world ain't the way to protect it.  You are from some 3rd world Muslim country and want to get here . . .fine then show me you deserve it-i.e. you better be a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, etc. somebody who can make a difference and help people's lives rather than destroy them.

Just think how much crap for 1 Somalia refugee.  2 woman's lives were destroyed (one went to drugs and they can't even find her now), 6 years in juvey, costing taxpayers at least 50k/year, how many hours did "volunteer" workers invest in his case to "rehabilitate" him . . .1000s.  All so we can feel good about ourselves and all the "good" we are doing by letting in refugees.

Like I said, we are committing cultural suicide; it is mind-boggling stupid. 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Who sets the bar?  The courts.  The problem with the Clintons is they own the Justice Dept and the press provides cover.  Hence... drain the swamp. 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/28/former-intelligence-inspector-general-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-expected-congress

I really don't think people realize how close we came to some really, really bad crap.  

When you have a political campaign putting direct pressure on an Inspector General for the Intelligence Community to make a certain call . . . dudes and dudettes that is straight up the junk we used to laugh at "banana republics" about as in look at those poor worthless "banana republics" I'd sure hate to live in a country where one political party pulls all the strings and no other party even has a chance . . 

Clinton was pulling Nixon-like charades . . .now just imagine if she had gotten into office (shudder, shudder . . .). Had she gotten elected, I'm not sure we'd ever see a non-Democrat president in my lifetime . . . 

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s just it.  One facile “well, the other guys control the courts”, and we’re perfectly comfortable keeping right on believing what we want to believe regardless of what the actual verdict was.  So, no, we really aren’t all that sincerely  concerned about learning truth by letting the judicial process play out; we’re just trying to buy time for our boy.

Even if Moore were actually convicted, his fans would be reaching for the “biased courts” trope even faster than  Roddy Duterte’s jackbooted goons can reach for for the meth they plant on their victims’ bodies. 

This is not true of Republicans.  Republicans DO respect the courts as is evidenced by their overwhelming demand for constitutionalists (hmm... why does this word appear as a misspelled word on spell check?).  Gianfonte got convicted of misdemeanor assault AFTER he was elected and his supporters, in and out of Montana, accepted that verdict.  The thing is, Montana doesn't care that Gianfonte assaulted a reporter, even a Fox News reporter.

In the case of Roy Moore, if this goes to court (instead of fading to the woodwork - as Allred doesn't seem interested in pursuing a real case so far), and he gets convicted of assault, chances are Alabama wouldn't care as it happened 40 years ago.  But if he gets convicted of sexual assault on a minor, then they're probably going to clamor for him to resign even if it happened 40 years ago.  And that's because the governor is Republican and the seat is guaranteed Republican.  Now, say, for some insane reason a Democrat is governor of Alabama.  I believe Alabama will tolerate Moore until they can elect a Republican governor or a Republican senator.  Alabama, like most Republicans, are sensitive to immorality.  But Alabama is also politically tuned in and would weigh electoral consequences especially after Moore having served effectively in the Supreme Court with the same exact immoral history.

You really shouldn't be so callous about Duterte when you have no idea what is happening in the country and has no sense of the machinations of power that is just as complex, if not more so, than the American government.  We are fighting for our lives and the lives of our children.  Stay in your country while we settle our own problems the way we want to settle them without intervention from western do-gooders who only has to worry about a 40-year-old accusation of sexual assault on a minor done by one of their nominated senators.

[anatess2]

29 minutes ago, JoCa said:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/28/former-intelligence-inspector-general-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-expected-congress

I really don't think people realize how close we came to some really, really bad crap.  

When you have a political campaign putting direct pressure on an Inspector General for the Intelligence Community to make a certain call . . . dudes and dudettes that is straight up the junk we used to laugh at "banana republics" about as in look at those poor worthless "banana republics" I'd sure hate to live in a country where one political party pulls all the strings and no other party even has a chance . . 

Clinton was pulling Nixon-like charades . . .now just imagine if she had gotten into office (shudder, shudder . . .). Had she gotten elected, I'm not sure we'd ever see a non-Democrat president in my lifetime . . . 

Oh, not just the Presidency, my man.  Imagine the courts!  If there's nothing else that Trump accomplishes except for the appointment of 140+ judges in Federal court vacancies he would have been a successful president.  Trump has proven to be true to his promise of populating the federal judiciary with constitutionalists.  I don't see much of a compromise nomination there which is one of the main reasons the Senate is moving on them as if wading through molasses.

Live in the Philippines for a while.  You got political parties all over the place with no fixed ideologies, all candidates running individually with all their oligarch backers hidden behind the curtain.  We got a President from one party and a Vice President from another party doing her own thing.   You got senators from the President's party backing the VP and senators from the VP's party backing the President...  you have no idea what their real game is.  At least with the American system, you can pretty much guess where they are going to fall on the vote according to which political party they belong to.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

I agree again . . .happy dance :-). On a serious note; I do appreciate the more cordial tone JAG.

Another sidenote; the Muslim rape case is one of the reasons why Trump was elected and for MAGA . . .obviously not that exact case, but for instances like it.  The "silent majority" shall we say had enough of the Royals and their crap . . .it's something that unfortunately NeverTrumpers (and I don't mean this derogatorily) could never see. The silent majority had enough of selling America and our Culture down the tubes towards multi-culturalism and one-world crap.  

And to pick on you a little bit [but not much ;-)] . . . you mention the hazards of "inferior vetting", I'd like to know what "vetting" exactly could be done to prevent this scumbag from getting here? I mean . . .what does that exactly look like?  There is no series of questions or "background" checks that one could have given this kid at 13 or his family to have prevented them from getting here.

The only thing that would work is to never let them (i.e. 3rd world Muslim refugees) get here in the first place

Do you have questions like "Have you or any of your close family members been a victim of sexual assault?"  For starters, they probably wouldn't even recognize the question or even understand what you mean when you say "sexual assault".  Then if you asked that type of a question, the lefties would be all up in arms about how bigoted of a person you are b/c you even dare to ask the question. Then, once you start asking the question, people will wisen up and just lie and say no (even if the real answer is yes) just to get in. Finally, all the bleeding heart liberal Mormons will scream bloody murder b/c if you didn't let in any refugees who had been a victim of sexual assault or of a criminal assault, you wouldn't be letting any of them in.

When people in this country finally start coming to their senses and recognize that in many places in the world. . . especially 3rd world Muslim countries, sexual assaults, rape, theft, murder, crime, etc. are a way of life and that letting in the slums of the 3rd world into this country will eventually make it a slum, only then can we start to solve the problem.  

What we have in the United States in way of culture, respect for life, laws, liberty, etc. is actually really pretty dang special and the only way it will continue that way is if we protect it.

Letting in the slums of the world ain't the way to protect it.  You are from some 3rd world Muslim country and want to get here . . .fine then show me you deserve it-i.e. you better be a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, etc. somebody who can make a difference and help people's lives rather than destroy them.

Just think how much crap for 1 Somalia refugee.  2 woman's lives were destroyed (one went to drugs and they can't even find her now), 6 years in juvey, costing taxpayers at least 50k/year, how many hours did "volunteer" workers invest in his case to "rehabilitate" him . . .1000s.  All so we can feel good about ourselves and all the "good" we are doing by letting in refugees.

Like I said, we are committing cultural suicide; it is mind-boggling stupid. 

I partly agree.  In college I had a Haitian apartment mate who had seen terrible things under Aristide; and as a result he had symptoms that in hindsight I would say bordered on paranoid/schizophrenia.  His bedroom mate (a Greek) was sincerely (and, I suspect, rightly) in fear of his own life by the end of the first semester.  So yeah, I get the dangers of the baggage a lot of these guys carry.  

On the other hand, a lot of our “Greatest generation” saw terrible things in WW2; and migrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries had often seen plenty of violence and rapine and death in their home countries; but they still assimilated more-or-less successfully.  We want to get the “good immigrants”; and I think one of the failures of establishment Republicans has been in failing to make a case at the grass-roots level articulating the benefits of a healthy immigration system (along with downplaying security concerns and demonizing those who raise them)—they have just expected rank-and-file conservatives to take certain dogmas/shibboleths on immigration as an article of faith.

Then again, I think Trump goes too hard in the other direction; and the core of his base even more so.  I think good vetting *is* possible, if we change our approach.  It can’t be a simple “what do you think about x?” interrogation; and of course following up with a bunch of references provided by the applicant himself is foolhardy in this age of internet-connected terror cells who would all be happy to vouch for each other.  IMHO would-be migrants need to show that they’ve already established a record of adopting/advocating American cultural norms even when they were in their own countries (published work in academia, successful research/inventions, a history of activism on behalf of western values, suffering persecution due to membership in a Judeo-Christian religion, etc).  Maybe we would even want some undercover guys posing as fellow immigrants from the homeland trying to draw them out about this subject or that and see how they talk about their hosts when they think no one’s listening.  That, in conjunction with quotas and some other creative thinking, could promote a regimen where we are truly getting the best of the best—which I think is what we all want.  

From an LDS standpoint, though, my suspicion is that the Church muckey-mucks have decided that America as we knew it is done both culturally and politically; and they are working like mad to promote a gospel culture that will endure when this hopelessly corrupt civil society comes crashing down.   If that’s the case, and the Pax Americana that allows our missionaries to travel freely is in decay, then from the Church’s standpoint it makes sense to try to get potential converts in proximity to our missionaries as quickly as possible by any means necessary—including advocating a free flow of immigration into our already-dying republic.  A chilling thought . . . And while the Church may be ready to throw in the towel on America, I’m not sure I’m quite there yet. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This is not true of Republicans.  Republicans DO respect the courts as is evidenced by their overwhelming demand for constitutionalists (hmm... why does this word appear as a misspelled word on spell check?).  Gianfonte got convicted of misdemeanor assault AFTER he was elected and his supporters, in and out of Montana, accepted that verdict.  The thing is, Montana doesn't care that Gianfonte assaulted a reporter, even a Fox News reporter.

In the case of Roy Moore, if this goes to court (instead of fading to the woodwork - as Allred doesn't seem interested in pursuing a real case so far), and he gets convicted of assault, chances are Alabama wouldn't care as it happened 40 years ago.  But if he gets convicted of sexual assault on a minor, then they're probably going to clamor for him to resign even if it happened 40 years ago.  And that's because the governor is Republican and the seat is guaranteed Republican.  Now, say, for some insane reason a Democrat is governor of Alabama.  I believe Alabama will tolerate Moore until they can elect a Republican governor or a Republican senator.  Alabama, like most Republicans, are sensitive to immorality.  But Alabama is also politically tuned in and would weigh electoral consequences especially after Moore having served effectively in the Supreme Court with the same exact immoral history.

You really shouldn't be so callous about Duterte when you have no idea what is happening in the country and has no sense of the machinations of power that is just as complex, if not more so, than the American government.  We are fighting for our lives and the lives of our children.  Stay in your country while we settle our own problems the way we want to settle them without intervention from western do-gooders who only has to worry about a 40-year-old accusation of sexual assault on a minor done by one of their nominated senators.

Your hypothetical about the effects of a Moore conviction is somewhat undercut by @JoCa‘s discussion about the length of time elapsed, the possibility for repentance, etc.    There have also been pastors down in Alabama making the “so what if he’s guilty?” argument—noting Mary’s young age at the time of Christ’s birth, etc.  They would never characterize their actions in the words that I’m about to use, but in a very real way—Moore’s supporters are already steeling themselves to receive confirmation that he’s guilty, and to continue to support him nonetheless.  Whether Alabamans would dump Moore at the next Republican primary remains to be seen, but he would likely be an incumbent by then and new revelations (or new proof of old allegations) wouldn’t carry the same shock value—my money would be on him staying put in the Senate indefinitely, our own version of Ed Kennedy lite.  We saw this movie with the Democrats back in the late 20th century.  Different actors now, but same script—this is how the sexual degenerates gaslight the virtuous and get them to sell out their values.

As for Duterte—I’m perfectly happy to let Filipinos bemoan their unprecedented crisis and do their little liberty-for-security deal with the Dutertean devil, making excuses for Duterte's ever-increasing body count just as Germans, Italians, Soviets, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Zimbabweans, Ugandans, Iranians, Cubans, Iraqis, Venezuelans, ad nauseum have done within the last century on behalf of their own dear leaders.  All well and good—if they can keep it within their own borders and don’t expect Brother Jonathan to come bail them out when it becomes apparent that their new dictators have gotten too big for their britches.  

But when Duterte’s supporters get so enamored of rule-by-strongman, contemptuous of legal procedure and due process, and enthralled with sexual misconduct as a sign of alpha-male virility; that they go gaa-gaa over Trump and start shilling for him before primarily-American internet audiences because they want to export Duterteism to America and think Trump is just the boy to do it:  I then feel obliged to ask those Duterte supporters to keep their bizarre, un-American fusion of godfatheresque statism and law-of-the-jungle-anarchy out of my homeland. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On the other hand, a lot of our “Greatest generation” saw terrible things in WW2; and migrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries had often seen plenty of violence and rapine and death in their home countries; but they still assimilated more-or-less successfully.  We want to get the “good immigrants”; and I think one of the failures of establishment Republicans has been in failing to make a case at the grass-roots level articulating the benefits of a healthy immigration system (along with downplaying security concerns and demonizing those who raise them)—they have just expected rank-and-file conservatives to take certain dogmas/shibboleths on immigration as an article of faith.

I agree with a lot of what you say.  I absolutely agree with the above.  We do want "good immigrants" and we absolutely should have a healthy immigration system.  I'll give you a hint as to why the early 19th and 20th century immigrants eventually immigrated well . . .they were Christian Europeans!  Yes you had the Italian slums, etc. but after one generation they integrated well enough that there is no real functional difference between them and others who had come from British stock.  

But advocating for Christian Europeans to come to the US is "racists and xenophobic" . . .umm there is a reason why our forefathers advocated this position . . .specifically to avoid cultural decay and to avoid the problems we are having today.  Pretty dang simple . . .

If we simply went back to immigration policies prior to 1964 it would solve a lot of problems (when they changed the immigration policies to accept anyone). 

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IMHO would-be migrants need to show that they’ve already established a record of adopting/advocating American cultural norms even when they were in their own countries (published work in academia, successful research/inventions, a history of activism on behalf of western values, suffering persecution due to membership in a Judeo-Christian religion, etc).

I'm totally on board with this . . .from wherever in the world.

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From an LDS standpoint, though, my suspicion is that the Church muckey-mucks have decided that America as we knew it is done both culturally and politically; and they are working like mad to promote a gospel culture that will endure when this hopelessly corrupt civil society comes crashing down.   If that’s the case, and the Pax Americana that allows our missionaries to travel freely is in decay, then from the Church’s standpoint it makes sense to try to get potential converts in proximity to our missionaries as quickly as possible by any means necessary—including advocating a free flow of immigration into our already-dying republic.  A chilling thought . . . And while the Church may be ready to throw in the towel on America, I’m not sure I’m quite there yet. 

I'm not ready to throw in the towel either . . .I'll fight until my last breath for my county, my homeland, my heritage, my posterity.  But I surmise that it is a losing battle and I have for several years.  Pax Americana is definitely in decay . . .when you start tearing down monuments of the past, renaming roads and buildings to the founders of the past;look out-it means your heritage and cultural values are going downhill fast. 

I will say it is pretty stunning to see the change in the Church.  Going from Ezra Taft Benson to today's leftest/liberal Church open boarders policies . . .just wow man wow . . .

You might think Trump's core is too hard-core to one side . . . but it is a natural reaction to the insane policies we've had over the last 30+ years; when you start to really look at it, it almost seems like it was planned, like somebody(ies) up at the top were intentionally creating policies to destroy American culture, it almost seems like None Dare Call it a Conspiracy hmm fancy that. 

When people wake up and no longer recognize the country they were born into you get a massive reaction . .. kind of like the insane policies of the hard-left drive more and more people into the alt-right . . .kind of like how Britain finally had enough and exited from the EU . .. 

Don't worry JAG, when the stuff in the article comes to your hometown, you might just join the dark side and start advocating for people like Roy Moore and Trump ;-).

Edited November 29, 2017 by JoCa

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As for Duterte—I’m perfectly happy to let Filipinos bemoan their unprecedented crisis and do their little liberty-for-security deal with the Dutertean devil, making excuses for Duterte's ever-increasing body count just as Germans, Italians, Soviets, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Zimbabweans, Ugandans, Iranians, Cubans, Iraqis, Venezuelans, ad nauseum have done within the last century on behalf of their own dear leaders.  All well and good—if they can keep it within their own borders and don’t expect Brother Jonathan to come bail them out when it becomes apparent that their new dictators have gotten too big for their britches.  

But when Duterte’s supporters get so enamored of rule-by-strongman, contemptuous of legal procedure and due process, and enthralled with sexual misconduct as a sign of alpha-male virility; that they go gaa-gaa over Trump and start shilling for him before primarily-American internet audiences because they want to export Duterteism to America and think Trump is just the boy to do it:  I then feel obliged to ask those Duterte supporters to keep their bizarre, un-American fusion of godfatheresque statism and law-of-the-jungle-anarchy out of my homeland. 

Hello... Philippines.  We fought a war with you after we kicked out the Spaniards.  You killed us.  We accepted our fate because you promised us freedom.  You gave it to us, you wouldn't let us go.  We kicked out our own dictator and kicked out your bases.  We killed our own ISIS terrorists.  It's an insult for you to say... "beg us to bail you out".  The nerve.

Edited November 29, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

52 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hello... Philippines.  We fought a war with you after we kicked out the Spaniards.  You killed us.  We accepted our fate because you promised us freedom.  You gave it to us, you wouldn't let us go.  We kicked out our own dictator and kicked out your bases.  We killed our own ISIS terrorists.  It's an insult for you to say... "beg us to bail you out".  The nerve.

Yeah, and now the Philippines are cozying up to those great humanitarians, the communist Chinese.  That’ll end well, I’m sure.  

Lemme get this straight:  The Philippine president you supported is out there killing people—thousands of them—and what works you up is the fact that I’ve supposedly “insulted” your countrymen?  That’s what I call “nerve”.

Remember that saying about “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”?  Sacrifices made before you were born, aren’t going to guarantee *your* perpetual safety; and if you think the Philippines are such a bastion of liberty and economic progress . . . Forgive me, but why did you emigrate?

I’m a little sorry you’re insulted by the rough-and-tumble of post-Trumpian political discourse, but frankly—not *THAT* sorry.  Through your ongoing support for Trump and your year-and-a-half of extolling his brand of dishonest, below-the-belt politics—err, master persuading, aka “four-dimensional chess”—, you have actively undermined the norms of civility that you now seek to use to chastise me.  It’s rank hypocrisy, Anatess, and it isn’t going to fly with anyone who’s been paying attention.  You wanted this.  Welcome to the new normal.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

50 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Don't worry JAG, when the stuff in the article comes to your hometown, you might just join the dark side and start advocating for people like Roy Moore and Trump ;-).

FWIW, that case pretty much IS my hometown, at least in a broad sense.  The courthouse where Mohamed was sentenced is where I practiced until about a year ago—in fact, I’ve been in front of Judge Trease before.  

(And I realize that in real life you don’t know me from Adam, so feel free to disregard if you like!)

Edited November 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

47 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, and now the Philippines are cozying up to those great humanitarians, the communist Chinese.  That’ll end well, I’m sure.  

Lemme get this straight:  The Philippine president you supported is out there killing people—thousands of them—and what works you up is the fact that I’ve supposedly “insulted” your countrymen?  That’s what I call “nerve”.

Remember that saying about “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”?  Sacrifices made before you were born, aren’t going to guarantee *your* perpetual safety; and if you think the Philippines are such a bastion of liberty and economic progress . . . Forgive me, but why did you emigrate?

I’m a little sorry you’re insulted by the rough-and-tumble of post-Trumpian political discourse, but frankly—not *THAT* sorry.  Through your ongoing support for Trump and your year-and-a-half of extolling his brand of dishonest, below-the-belt politics—err, master persuading, aka “four-dimensional chess”—, you have actively undermined the norms of civility that you now seek to use to chastise me.  It’s rank hypocrisy, Anatess, and it isn’t going to fly with anyone who’s been paying attention.  You wanted this.  Welcome to the new normal.

Never Trumpers and their perfect world.  And you wonder why Americans get the rap of being worldly ignorant.  Duterte is not out there killing people in the same manner that the US is not out there in the Middle East killing people.  That's called WAR.

You can insult Filipinos all you want.  And your fake civility can go where the sun don't shine.  We Bisaya don't care about that kind of bullcrap.  We're not the ones making slaves in Libya while talking high brow.

And just look at that.  You just proved you're not as civilized as you pretend to be.

Edited November 29, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Never Trumpers and their perfect world.  And you wonder why Americans get the rap of being worldly ignorant.  Duterte is not out there killing people in the same manner that the US is not out there in the Middle East killing people.  That's called WAR.

You can insult Filipinos all you want.  And your fake civility can go where the sun don't shine.  We Bisaya don't care about that kind of bullcrap.  We're not the ones making slaves in Libya while talking high brow.

Well, at least the mask is off.  I’ll have to bookmark this post for the next time you complain about someone being mean to you in a political discussion.  Of course, your newly adopted devil-may-care, tough-guy schtick would be so much more effective, rhetorically, if you hadn’t just been wailing about my supposedly having insulted you.

Your protestation of “but, it’s war!” would similarly be more effective if it hadn’t been used to justify the actions of Stalin, and Hitler, and Castro, Pol Pot, and Mugabe, and Mao, and every other tyrant of the last hundred years.  Your jybe about the US supposedly perpetrating slavery in Libya, factually substantiated or not, shows that in your heart of hearts, you don't believe the “war justifies all” trope any more than I do—you like Duterte for who and what he is, quite apart from any current sociopolitical exigencies.  The God who gave life to Duterte’s victims, and who revealed D&C 98, will ultimately be the judge of those exigencies; and of Duterte, and of those who aided and abetted his rise to power.  In the interim, it’s very fortunate that you—and we—don’t have to live near Duterte's killing fields.  It is similarly unfortunate that you feel that Duterteism is something that can and ought to be implemented on American soil.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FWIW, that case pretty much IS my hometown, at least in a broad sense.  The courthouse where Mohamed was sentenced is where I practiced until about a year ago—in fact, I’ve been in front of Judge Trease before.  

(And I realize that in real life you don’t know me from Adam, so feel free to disregard if you like!)

I trust you  . . .that sucks it's your hometown, ugh . . .

[Vort]

3 hours ago, JoCa said:

I will say it is pretty stunning to see the change in the Church.  Going from Ezra Taft Benson to today's leftest/liberal Church open boarders policies . . .just wow man wow . . .

Pure baloney. And you claim qualifies as "baloney" only because I don't want to use more vulgar language to describe it. To describe the Church's policies as "leftist" (or even "leftest") is wildly inaccurate. And to assert that the Church has an "open borders" policy is Just Plain False. Treating people with dignity and seeking to preserve families is a far cry from an "open borders" policy.

(If you actually meant "open boarders" as you wrote, then I'm not sure. Maybe you're right. I didn't realize the Church opened itself to boarders. I'd be surprised if that were true, though. The Church normally locks up the buildings at night.)

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

To describe the Church's policies as "leftist" (or even "leftest") is wildly inaccurate.

Wrong. Everyone knows that the LDS church is one of the strongest promoters of leftism in the entire world.

[zil]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Everyone knows that the LDS church is one of the strongest promoters of leftism in the entire world.

My brother's been a member his whole life.  They gave him the priesthood, and let him go to scouts, and even let him have callings.  And he's a lefty!  No one from church ever slapped his hand with a ruler.  If that's not promotion of leftyism, what is?

Of course, the rest of us are righties, and Mom once said she thought he was only a lefty because he broke his right arm around the time he would have been learning to write, so...

Edited November 29, 2017 by zil

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

My brother's been a member his whole life.  They gave him the priesthood, and let him go to scouts, and even let him have callings.  And he's a lefty!  No one from church ever slapped his hand with a ruler.  If that's not promotion of leftyism, what is?

Of course, the rest of us are righties, and Mom once said she thought he was only a lefty because he broke his right arm around the time he would have been learning to read, so...

@zil, you are as blind as @Vort. The LDS church is the number one promoter of left wing values in the country. Maybe even the world. In fact, it's up there with the Communist Party USA. Fools! You both are fools! 
 

[JoCa]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

Pure baloney. And you claim qualifies as "baloney" only because I don't want to use more vulgar language to describe it. To describe the Church's policies as "leftist" (or even "leftest") is wildly inaccurate. And to assert that the Church has an "open borders" policy is Just Plain False. Treating people with dignity and seeking to preserve families is a far cry from an "open borders" policy.

(If you actually meant "open boarders" as you wrote, then I'm not sure. Maybe you're right. I didn't realize the Church opened itself to boarders. I'd be surprised if that were true, though. The Church normally locks up the buildings at night.)

What's really funny is how the staunch conservatives in the Church can't seem to actually understand that yes it is changing.  They want to stick their heads in the sand with their ears plugged singing "nanananana".

Again, 10 years ago the Church would have never dreamed a tacit endorsement of LoveLoud.  One of the blooming members of the BSA executive council who voted to allow girls into BSA was a former General Young Men's President!!!

Compare the following:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

"The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship. "

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-church-expresses-concern-for-those-fleeing-violence-war-and-religious-persecution

The above was when Trump wanted to close borders to countries that present a risk to the US.

That is amnesty . . .which is in effect a soft open boarders.  Dude you really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

The Church has taken a left turn. The Church is not leftist . . .but it has taken a left turn-that is completely undeniable.

Now I totally agree, rounding up millions of people and kicking them out-not gonna happen.  But stopping immigration completely from problem countries-can be done; building a wall to prevent them from coming here-can be done.  But unfortunately, Trumps solutions are horrible to a significant portion of the population of Utah . . .  

Edited November 29, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Treating people with dignity and seeking to preserve families . .. 

And that is how the leftist always describe it. 

"We need amnesty b/c of . . .well think of the children!!!"

The funny thing is that most LDS members (especially in Utah) live in a very heavily single majority demographic; if they actually had to deal with the problems that most of the rest of the country is reeling from they would very quickly start singing a different tune.  It's all well and good to "think of the children" when where you live is 80+% culturally homogeneous.  Start living in an area that over a span of 10 years goes from 80% culturally homogenous to 40% and then see the drugs, the crime, etc. come into your area and then tell me what you think of "preserving families".  

Tell me what you think of "preserving families" when driving down the interstate you see Mexican flags waving on the backs of trucks . . .

Yeah I do want to preserve families . . .my own.