|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 04 2016 10:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 10:26 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:45 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? I find the idea of assassinating Assange despicable, if that's what you're asking. But would it change anything for you? If so, what (presuming the quote is accurate)? Hillary could stand in the middle of the State Department, and say she was going to drone somebody, and she wouldn't lose any voters, folks. Well, Trump can say in a national broadcast that he would blow up Iranian military vessels because their soldiers said mean things (and it wouldn't start a war), and you're still voting for him. I'm sure you can excuse the people who still vote for someone in spite of a tweet of an anonymous source's hearsay.
Nice Context. It was more about the rules of engagement for that quote. Full quote + context is better than an interpretation to corrupt the facts.
|
On October 04 2016 10:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 10:47 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 10:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. Wikileaks claimed the Assange meetings where assassination was discussed happened in 2010.This guy was a democrat strategist at that time? Interesting... No, he wasn't. He was a Fox News pundit. Anything else? Ok well the wikileaks text under the video claimed he was a democrat strategist.Seems like he also founded a lobbying firm, Bob Beckel & Associates.Wonder if there is anything about this group in the leaked wikileaks files? Anyway this is a sideshow.The main event starts later today!
Easy mistake, CNN is still making it.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kxQflWW.jpg) They do mix in "worked on the Mondale campaign" sometimes though.
|
On October 04 2016 10:55 Titan107 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 10:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 04 2016 10:26 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:45 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? I find the idea of assassinating Assange despicable, if that's what you're asking. But would it change anything for you? If so, what (presuming the quote is accurate)? Hillary could stand in the middle of the State Department, and say she was going to drone somebody, and she wouldn't lose any voters, folks. Well, Trump can say in a national broadcast that he would blow up Iranian military vessels because their soldiers said mean things (and it wouldn't start a war), and you're still voting for him. I'm sure you can excuse the people who still vote for someone in spite of a tweet of an anonymous source's hearsay. Nice Context. It was more about the rules of engagement for that quote. Full quote + context is better than an interpretation to corrupt the facts.
No, he said he would blow up an Iranian ship if the Iranians made mean gestures at the "beautiful US Destroyer". And then he tried to act like doing so wouldn't be an act of war at the debate.
Firing on another nations ships unprovoked is an act of war.
|
|
|
On October 04 2016 10:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 10:47 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 10:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. Wikileaks claimed the Assange meetings where assassination was discussed happened in 2010.This guy was a democrat strategist at that time? Interesting... No, he wasn't. He was a Fox News pundit. Anything else? Ok well the wikileaks text under the video claimed he was a democrat strategist.Seems like he also founded a lobbying firm, Bob Beckel & Associates.Wonder if there is anything about this group in the leaked wikileaks files? Anyway this is a sideshow.The main event starts later today!
He was a democrat strategist in 1984 and 2002, for presidential and senatorial campaigns respectively.
Apparently the 2010 video was a mock debate hosted by Fox News. 2011-2015 he was hired as a co-host of Fox News. Currently works for CNN for election coverage.
So yeah, understandable why spin doctors want to call him a democrat strategist, but really he's been a talking head entertainer for the last 7 years.
|
A federal appeals court panel Monday blocked Indiana Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence's attempt to keep Syrian refugees out of Indiana.
The court upheld a lower court judge in barring Pence from interfering with the distribution of federal funds to resettle Syrian refugees in his state. The appeals court panel said that federal law bars discrimination based on nationality.
The three-judge panel that issued the ruling is an all-star group of conservative judges, including one of the judges on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
In a unanimous opinion, the appeals court said Gov. Pence acted illegally in accepting federal money for refugee resettlement and then refusing to use that money to aid Syrian refugees.
The panel rejected Pence's argument that terrorists are posing as Syrian refugees to gain entry into the U.S., calling it a "nightmare speculation" based on no evidence. Indeed, the court said, the state presented no evidence that any Syrian refugee had been involved in a terrorist act in the U.S.
The court added that resettlement of persecuted refugees is a federal responsibility under the 1980 Refugee Act, which authorizes the president to determine, on the basis of "humanitarian concerns or ... the national interest," how many refugees to admit each year. In 2016, President Obama set the number at 85,000, including 10,000 Syrians. The refugees undergo multiple layers of screening by the federal government before entering the country in a process that can take up to two years.
But with Syrian refugees, the state of Indiana refused to use any of the refugee resettlement money it had received from the federal government. Exodus, a private resettlement group that contracted with the state, went to court, represented by the ACLU. It argued that the state's refusal was illegal discrimination.
Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, said the court's decision on Monday underscores that "Gov. Pence may not constitutionally or legally discriminate against a particular nationality of refugees that are extensively vetted by the federal government."
Pence argued that the state's position was not based on discrimination but on the threat that Syrian refugees pose to the safety of residents of Indiana.
Source
|
GOP comes out against the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution. I knew they hated due process.
|
Stupid Pence, why oh why must politicians be politicians, and assholes, and unjust.
why is it so hard to just be reasonable and thoughtful?
they should really try supporting the constitution, instead of just lying about supporting it.
|
I mean it's not surprising Pence doesn't give a shit about the 6th Amendment when he considers all Syrian refugees terrorism risks when none of them have done anything of the sort in the U.S. (as far as I know).
|
On October 04 2016 11:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean it's not surprising Pence doesn't give a shit about the 6th Amendment when he considers all Syrian refugees terrorism risks when none of them have done anything of the sort in the U.S. (as far as I know).
You may want to look up the sixth amendment :p
|
Another check in the unamerican box.
|
On October 04 2016 11:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean it's not surprising Pence doesn't give a shit about the 6th Amendment when he considers all Syrian refugees terrorism risks when none of them have done anything of the sort in the U.S. (as far as I know).
Pence seems just all around bad/ineffective. I am not sure why you would pick someone who would likely lose his reelection.
|
Everything after the second amendment isn't that important eh. The GOP should replace the cute elephant with a pitchfork
|
On October 04 2016 10:48 Mohdoo wrote:
5 hours til assange makes his final stand hype
|
On October 04 2016 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 11:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean it's not surprising Pence doesn't give a shit about the 6th Amendment when he considers all Syrian refugees terrorism risks when none of them have done anything of the sort in the U.S. (as far as I know). You may want to look up the sixth amendment :p
It's hard to have a fair and speedy trial for crimes you haven't committed or defend yourself when the governor is accusing you of a crime you haven't even had the chance to commit
|
What a worthless cock tease. They better have video evidence of her murdering a hobo and eating his brain to give herself power at this point.
|
Assange just feels like a drama queen at this point. Likes to get hype going around himself.
|
On October 04 2016 11:27 Slaughter wrote:Assange just feels like a drama queen at this point. Likes to get hype going around himself.
He has always been in it for the ego. Watch old interviews with him. He is all about making important people care about him.
|
This rando's tweet sums up the Republican strategy against Hillary nicely 
|
I guess Trump's Assange life ring didn't materialize and he's probably gonna take a hit in the polls for not having something to bail him out for last week's performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
