Blank Discussion Topic

JC29856 · January 2017

More chickens...

http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/obama-media/

Many journalists would probably agree with Obama's remarks about digging deeper and demanding more as well as focusing on long-lasting journalism as opposed to dashing off tweets. But when reporters have tried to do this with the White House and the rest of the Obama administration, they have been stymied at every turn, and in some cases, they have even been threatened with prosecution.

BS44325 · January 2017

Spiritual_Chaos said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.

Gifs are silly.

Spiritual_Chaos · January 2017

BS44325 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.

Gifs are silly.

Then what is this:

BS44325 · January 2017

Spiritual_Chaos said:

BS44325 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.

Gifs are silly.
Then what is this:

Another gif from your rolodex

Go Beavers · January 2017

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
Do you have a better idea to stop the violence? We can let these murder numbers climb another 25% this year and watch the city continue on a path to shit..Cops can't get it done, Rahm hasn't been able to, so what do we do? Get the Fed's in and help with the root cause..the poverty, the gangs, the drugs, etc.. I'm with "the donald" on this one. (Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the bafoon)..trademark josevolution.
Fearful and desperate people tend to be the ones who end up supporting dictators.
I am neither..what do you suggest in Chicago?
I recommend first that people reject any trump proposal that includes larger, heavy handed federal government response (which will be most of his proposals outside of budget cuts) then I recommend that people read about gang behavior and gang interventions. Then they should look at all that data broadly, come up with their own ideas (borrowed or new) about what to do and go from there. It can be ppealing to to some to default to the lowest common denominator of a police state, but you should fight that urge.
Very solid recommendations..i would bet that law enforcement and other groups have previously read into gang behavior and looked at all the data available wouldn't you think? This has been going on in Chicago for years. So in that case when all else has failed, (which I believe we could be at that point) what do you do??

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
Do you have a better idea to stop the violence? We can let these murder numbers climb another 25% this year and watch the city continue on a path to shit..Cops can't get it done, Rahm hasn't been able to, so what do we do? Get the Fed's in and help with the root cause..the poverty, the gangs, the drugs, etc.. I'm with "the donald" on this one. (Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the bafoon)..trademark josevolution.
Fearful and desperate people tend to be the ones who end up supporting dictators.
I am neither..what do you suggest in Chicago?
I recommend first that people reject any trump proposal that includes larger, heavy handed federal government response (which will be most of his proposals outside of budget cuts) then I recommend that people read about gang behavior and gang interventions. Then they should look at all that data broadly, come up with their own ideas (borrowed or new) about what to do and go from there. It can be ppealing to to some to default to the lowest common denominator of a police state, but you should fight that urge.
Very solid recommendations..i would bet that law enforcement and other groups have previously read into gang behavior and looked at all the data available wouldn't you think? This has been going on in Chicago for years. So in that case when all else has failed, (which I believe we could be at that point) what do you do??
Your making some assumptions. I don't know how thoroughly Chicago has looked into interventions that could work. Also when you say "all else has failed", that means they've tried everything, which is really unlikely.
Then perhaps the Feds (In suits, not combat gear) should come in and see why, in your eyes, everything hasn't been looked into why thousands of Americans are killing each other annually in Chicago the past decade..

You know all the talk about Chicago being a murder filled hell hole has a lot to do with media manipulation by drama? And a lot of the people focusing on Chicago as some problem worthy if federal intervention would probably say to not pay attention to the "MSM". But I guess if you want the feds to go to Chicago, they'll also need to go to Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark, St. Louis, and Detroit. Their murder rates are right up there, if not higher than Chicago's. So the question is do we follow trump's lead of emotion driven self-centered drama, or should we base interventions in reality?

Kat · January 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2USBVaipcA

j1kotwic · January 2017

pjhawks said:

j1kotwic said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

j1kotwic said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

vaggar99 said:
who here still supports this guy? and why?
Stupidity and racism.
I support him because Americans elected him and he is our now our president. I voted for him because I thought he was a better option than Hillary. That doesn't mean I'm aligned with him on every issue though. This means I'm a stupid racist?

So you made a really bad decision. And now you're just going to 'fall in line' because he's your president? My gawd man.

And sorry, but questions regarding your critical thinking ability emerge when you say you "thought he was a better option..." You might be a hell of a guy, but eesh. Trump was a steep price to pay to stick it to the establishment (not that you did that anyways... you voted for an silver spoon fed billionaire instead of a millionaire).
I don't think I made a bad decision. I think I voted for the better of the two options... it was a difficult decision that I struggled with at times. I think you guys need to realize that half of the voters chose a different candidate than you and not all of them are morons and/or racists.

clearly not all who voted for him are racists but the other description seems pretty apt.

Ah ha, so there is someone in AMT who believes that non-racist Trump voters exist. So you won't agree that not all Trump voters are stupid... I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy. But I suppose most stupid people consider themselves to be smart. Shit maybe I am stupid and just don't know it. And to think all of this could have been avoided if I voted like you.

In all seriousness, I think it's stupid to judge someone you've never met based on who they voted for... and it seems like there is way too much of this going on these days - especially here in AMT. I'd be happy to participate in a meaningful discussion about this election but if I'm considered by everyone on here to be a stupid racist right off the bat then I guess there's no point in trying. That's pretty much why I usually read AMT and don't post. You guys are like the Fox News of the left, except worse. Doesn't anyone see that?

BS44325 · January 2017

j1kotwic said:

pjhawks said:

j1kotwic said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

j1kotwic said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

vaggar99 said:
who here still supports this guy? and why?
Stupidity and racism.
I support him because Americans elected him and he is our now our president. I voted for him because I thought he was a better option than Hillary. That doesn't mean I'm aligned with him on every issue though. This means I'm a stupid racist?

So you made a really bad decision. And now you're just going to 'fall in line' because he's your president? My gawd man.

And sorry, but questions regarding your critical thinking ability emerge when you say you "thought he was a better option..." You might be a hell of a guy, but eesh. Trump was a steep price to pay to stick it to the establishment (not that you did that anyways... you voted for an silver spoon fed billionaire instead of a millionaire).
I don't think I made a bad decision. I think I voted for the better of the two options... it was a difficult decision that I struggled with at times. I think you guys need to realize that half of the voters chose a different candidate than you and not all of them are morons and/or racists.

clearly not all who voted for him are racists but the other description seems pretty apt.
Ah ha, so there is someone in AMT who believes that non-racist Trump voters exist. So you won't agree that not all Trump voters are stupid... I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy. But I suppose most stupid people consider themselves to be smart. Shit maybe I am stupid and just don't know it. And to think all of this could have been avoided if I voted like you.

In all seriousness, I think it's stupid to judge someone you've never met based on who they voted for... and it seems like there is way too much of this going on these days - especially here in AMT. I'd be happy to participate in a meaningful discussion about this election but if I'm considered by everyone on here to be a stupid racist right off the bat then I guess there's no point in trying. That's pretty much why I usually read AMT and don't post. You guys are like the Fox News of the left, except worse. Doesn't anyone see that?

I see it

InHiding80 · January 2017

j1kotwic said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

vaggar99 said:
who here still supports this guy? and why?
Stupidity and racism.
I support him because Americans elected him and he is our now our president. I voted for him because I thought he was a better option than Hillary. That doesn't mean I'm aligned with him on every issue though. This means I'm a stupid racist?

Yes it does mean you are a racist. You are the company you keep.

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

ledvedderman said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
No shit. I wonder what the chain of command is for something like that. Would Rahm or our piece of shit Governor Rauner have to make a request for the feds to step in?
Yes. The governor has to make the request. Think back to Katrina. Bush couldn't send troops until Governor Blanco made the official request.
Which bring us to multiple scenarios of agencies and government employees not following our new dictators orders. What follows that, and what are the implications? The system runs on a certain level of faith and trust. Trump is effing with that and he has no clue whatsoever.
No. It doesn't lead to multiple scenerios. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act detail requirements and limitations for a federal government to intervene.
You're just referring to what trump said about Chicago. But even in that single scenario, trump will interpret those as giving him permission to send "the feds". He will probably be told no, and then it what hapoens after that matters. You seem to be under the impression that trump is educated on anything about the federal government and is willing to respect the limits placed on it.
He also has a pen and a phone.
Yawn. Yup, he's just like Obama. Got it.
With the big difference being that Trump will not tolerate the carnage that is Chicago.
I wonder how Unsung feels about federal jack booted thugs occupying his city? Maybe he's okay with it seeing how it'll be predominately minority occupied neighborhoods that'll be occupied?
would
HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.
when did he do that? did he refuse to answer their questions at pressers?
I am not surprised that most of you are unfamiliar with Obama's record on press freedom and the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers but here's a little taste

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

oh please. a biased opinion piece. next.

Wma31394 · January 2017

Do you have a better idea to stop the violence? We can let these murder numbers climb another 25% this year and watch the city continue on a path to shit..Cops can't get it done, Rahm hasn't been able to, so what do we do? Get the Fed's in and help with the root cause..the poverty, the gangs, the drugs, etc.. I'm with "the donald" on this one. (Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the bafoon)..trademark josevolution.

Fearful and desperate people tend to be the ones who end up supporting dictators.

I am neither..what do you suggest in Chicago?

I recommend first that people reject any trump proposal that includes larger, heavy handed federal government response (which will be most of his proposals outside of budget cuts) then I recommend that people read about gang behavior and gang interventions. Then they should look at all that data broadly, come up with their own ideas (borrowed or new) about what to do and go from there. It can be ppealing to to some to default to the lowest common denominator of a police state, but you should fight that urge.

Very solid recommendations..i would bet that law enforcement and other groups have previously read into gang behavior and looked at all the data available wouldn't you think? This has been going on in Chicago for years. So in that case when all else has failed, (which I believe we could be at that point) what do you do??

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
Do you have a better idea to stop the violence? We can let these murder numbers climb another 25% this year and watch the city continue on a path to shit..Cops can't get it done, Rahm hasn't been able to, so what do we do? Get the Fed's in and help with the root cause..the poverty, the gangs, the drugs, etc.. I'm with "the donald" on this one. (Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the bafoon)..trademark josevolution.
Fearful and desperate people tend to be the ones who end up supporting dictators.
I am neither..what do you suggest in Chicago?
I recommend first that people reject any trump proposal that includes larger, heavy handed federal government response (which will be most of his proposals outside of budget cuts) then I recommend that people read about gang behavior and gang interventions. Then they should look at all that data broadly, come up with their own ideas (borrowed or new) about what to do and go from there. It can be ppealing to to some to default to the lowest common denominator of a police state, but you should fight that urge.
Very solid recommendations..i would bet that law enforcement and other groups have previously read into gang behavior and looked at all the data available wouldn't you think? This has been going on in Chicago for years. So in that case when all else has failed, (which I believe we could be at that point) what do you do??

Your making some assumptions. I don't know how thoroughly Chicago has looked into interventions that could work. Also when you say "all else has failed", that means they've tried everything, which is really unlikely.

Then perhaps the Feds (In suits, not combat gear) should come in and see why, in your eyes, everything hasn't been looked into why thousands of Americans are killing each other annually in Chicago the past decade..

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
Do you have a better idea to stop the violence? We can let these murder numbers climb another 25% this year and watch the city continue on a path to shit..Cops can't get it done, Rahm hasn't been able to, so what do we do? Get the Fed's in and help with the root cause..the poverty, the gangs, the drugs, etc.. I'm with "the donald" on this one. (Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the bafoon)..trademark josevolution.
Fearful and desperate people tend to be the ones who end up supporting dictators.
I am neither..what do you suggest in Chicago?
I recommend first that people reject any trump proposal that includes larger, heavy handed federal government response (which will be most of his proposals outside of budget cuts) then I recommend that people read about gang behavior and gang interventions. Then they should look at all that data broadly, come up with their own ideas (borrowed or new) about what to do and go from there. It can be ppealing to to some to default to the lowest common denominator of a police state, but you should fight that urge.
Very solid recommendations..i would bet that law enforcement and other groups have previously read into gang behavior and looked at all the data available wouldn't you think? This has been going on in Chicago for years. So in that case when all else has failed, (which I believe we could be at that point) what do you do??

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:

Wma31394 said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
Do you have a better idea to stop the violence? We can let these murder numbers climb another 25% this year and watch the city continue on a path to shit..Cops can't get it done, Rahm hasn't been able to, so what do we do? Get the Fed's in and help with the root cause..the poverty, the gangs, the drugs, etc.. I'm with "the donald" on this one. (Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the bafoon)..trademark josevolution.
Fearful and desperate people tend to be the ones who end up supporting dictators.
I am neither..what do you suggest in Chicago?
I recommend first that people reject any trump proposal that includes larger, heavy handed federal government response (which will be most of his proposals outside of budget cuts) then I recommend that people read about gang behavior and gang interventions. Then they should look at all that data broadly, come up with their own ideas (borrowed or new) about what to do and go from there. It can be ppealing to to some to default to the lowest common denominator of a police state, but you should fight that urge.
Very solid recommendations..i would bet that law enforcement and other groups have previously read into gang behavior and looked at all the data available wouldn't you think? This has been going on in Chicago for years. So in that case when all else has failed, (which I believe we could be at that point) what do you do??
Your making some assumptions. I don't know how thoroughly Chicago has looked into interventions that could work. Also when you say "all else has failed", that means they've tried everything, which is really unlikely.
Then perhaps the Feds (In suits, not combat gear) should come in and see why, in your eyes, everything hasn't been looked into why thousands of Americans are killing each other annually in Chicago the past decade..

You know all the talk about Chicago being a murder filled hell hole has a lot to do with media manipulation by drama? And a lot of the people focusing on Chicago as some problem worthy if federal intervention would probably say to not pay attention to the "MSM". But I guess if you want the feds to go to Chicago, they'll also need to go to Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark, St. Louis, and Detroit. Their murder rates are right up there, if not higher than Chicago's. So the question is do we follow trump's lead of emotion driven self-centered drama, or should we base interventions in reality?

Sorry I don't understand..are you suggesting media driven "alternative facts"?? The "talk" roots from actual numbers from the morgue's in Chicago. 70 something murders this year on day 25. Wait until "suns out..guns out" when weather is nice...but go on acting like it's ok.

Spiritual_Chaos · January 2017

j1kotwic said:

pjhawks said:

j1kotwic said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

j1kotwic said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

vaggar99 said:
who here still supports this guy? and why?
Stupidity and racism.
I support him because Americans elected him and he is our now our president. I voted for him because I thought he was a better option than Hillary. That doesn't mean I'm aligned with him on every issue though. This means I'm a stupid racist?

So you made a really bad decision. And now you're just going to 'fall in line' because he's your president? My gawd man.

And sorry, but questions regarding your critical thinking ability emerge when you say you "thought he was a better option..." You might be a hell of a guy, but eesh. Trump was a steep price to pay to stick it to the establishment (not that you did that anyways... you voted for an silver spoon fed billionaire instead of a millionaire).
I don't think I made a bad decision. I think I voted for the better of the two options... it was a difficult decision that I struggled with at times. I think you guys need to realize that half of the voters chose a different candidate than you and not all of them are morons and/or racists.

clearly not all who voted for him are racists but the other description seems pretty apt.
Ah ha, so there is someone in AMT who believes that non-racist Trump voters exist. So you won't agree that not all Trump voters are stupid... I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy. But I suppose most stupid people consider themselves to be smart. Shit maybe I am stupid and just don't know it. And to think all of this could have been avoided if I voted like you.

In all seriousness, I think it's stupid to judge someone you've never met based on who they voted for... and it seems like there is way too much of this going on these days - especially here in AMT. I'd be happy to participate in a meaningful discussion about this election but if I'm considered by everyone on here to be a stupid racist right off the bat then I guess there's no point in trying. That's pretty much why I usually read AMT and don't post. You guys are like the Fox News of the left, except worse. Doesn't anyone see that?

Voting for someone who won't acknowledge the dangers of climate change and ran the campaign like he did, yeah I judge that person. That's someone really stupid or someone who lacks empathy.

Has nothing to do with having left/liberal views.

It's common sense.

InHiding80 · January 2017

BS44325 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

BS44325 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.

Gifs are silly.
Then what is this:

Another gif from your rolodex

Translation: He's white and republican so it's magically not mocking a disabled reporter and edited.

JC29856 · January 2017

j1kotwic said:

pjhawks said:

j1kotwic said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

j1kotwic said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

vaggar99 said:
who here still supports this guy? and why?
Stupidity and racism.
I support him because Americans elected him and he is our now our president. I voted for him because I thought he was a better option than Hillary. That doesn't mean I'm aligned with him on every issue though. This means I'm a stupid racist?

So you made a really bad decision. And now you're just going to 'fall in line' because he's your president? My gawd man.

And sorry, but questions regarding your critical thinking ability emerge when you say you "thought he was a better option..." You might be a hell of a guy, but eesh. Trump was a steep price to pay to stick it to the establishment (not that you did that anyways... you voted for an silver spoon fed billionaire instead of a millionaire).
I don't think I made a bad decision. I think I voted for the better of the two options... it was a difficult decision that I struggled with at times. I think you guys need to realize that half of the voters chose a different candidate than you and not all of them are morons and/or racists.

clearly not all who voted for him are racists but the other description seems pretty apt.
Ah ha, so there is someone in AMT who believes that non-racist Trump voters exist. So you won't agree that not all Trump voters are stupid... I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy. But I suppose most stupid people consider themselves to be smart. Shit maybe I am stupid and just don't know it. And to think all of this could have been avoided if I voted like you.

In all seriousness, I think it's stupid to judge someone you've never met based on who they voted for... and it seems like there is way too much of this going on these days - especially here in AMT. I'd be happy to participate in a meaningful discussion about this election but if I'm considered by everyone on here to be a stupid racist right off the bat then I guess there's no point in trying. That's pretty much why I usually read AMT and don't post. You guys are like the Fox News of the left, except worse. Doesn't anyone see that?

Well said. You're touching on the reasons why many don't bother posting here.

BS44325 · January 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

ledvedderman said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
No shit. I wonder what the chain of command is for something like that. Would Rahm or our piece of shit Governor Rauner have to make a request for the feds to step in?
Yes. The governor has to make the request. Think back to Katrina. Bush couldn't send troops until Governor Blanco made the official request.
Which bring us to multiple scenarios of agencies and government employees not following our new dictators orders. What follows that, and what are the implications? The system runs on a certain level of faith and trust. Trump is effing with that and he has no clue whatsoever.
No. It doesn't lead to multiple scenerios. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act detail requirements and limitations for a federal government to intervene.
You're just referring to what trump said about Chicago. But even in that single scenario, trump will interpret those as giving him permission to send "the feds". He will probably be told no, and then it what hapoens after that matters. You seem to be under the impression that trump is educated on anything about the federal government and is willing to respect the limits placed on it.
He also has a pen and a phone.
Yawn. Yup, he's just like Obama. Got it.
With the big difference being that Trump will not tolerate the carnage that is Chicago.
I wonder how Unsung feels about federal jack booted thugs occupying his city? Maybe he's okay with it seeing how it'll be predominately minority occupied neighborhoods that'll be occupied?
would
HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.
when did he do that? did he refuse to answer their questions at pressers?
I am not surprised that most of you are unfamiliar with Obama's record on press freedom and the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers but here's a little taste

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

oh please. a biased opinion piece. next.

Here are some unbiased facts for you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters

But I wouldn't be surprised if you brush this off as well. Press freedom was under assault and nobody made a peep.

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

j1kotwic said:

pjhawks said:

j1kotwic said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

j1kotwic said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

vaggar99 said:
who here still supports this guy? and why?
Stupidity and racism.
I support him because Americans elected him and he is our now our president. I voted for him because I thought he was a better option than Hillary. That doesn't mean I'm aligned with him on every issue though. This means I'm a stupid racist?

So you made a really bad decision. And now you're just going to 'fall in line' because he's your president? My gawd man.

And sorry, but questions regarding your critical thinking ability emerge when you say you "thought he was a better option..." You might be a hell of a guy, but eesh. Trump was a steep price to pay to stick it to the establishment (not that you did that anyways... you voted for an silver spoon fed billionaire instead of a millionaire).
I don't think I made a bad decision. I think I voted for the better of the two options... it was a difficult decision that I struggled with at times. I think you guys need to realize that half of the voters chose a different candidate than you and not all of them are morons and/or racists.

clearly not all who voted for him are racists but the other description seems pretty apt.
Ah ha, so there is someone in AMT who believes that non-racist Trump voters exist. So you won't agree that not all Trump voters are stupid... I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy. But I suppose most stupid people consider themselves to be smart. Shit maybe I am stupid and just don't know it. And to think all of this could have been avoided if I voted like you.

In all seriousness, I think it's stupid to judge someone you've never met based on who they voted for... and it seems like there is way too much of this going on these days - especially here in AMT. I'd be happy to participate in a meaningful discussion about this election but if I'm considered by everyone on here to be a stupid racist right off the bat then I guess there's no point in trying. That's pretty much why I usually read AMT and don't post. You guys are like the Fox News of the left, except worse. Doesn't anyone see that?

if you only pay attention to those who say things like that, then that's what you are choosing to see.

JC29856 · January 2017

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

ledvedderman said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
No shit. I wonder what the chain of command is for something like that. Would Rahm or our piece of shit Governor Rauner have to make a request for the feds to step in?
Yes. The governor has to make the request. Think back to Katrina. Bush couldn't send troops until Governor Blanco made the official request.
Which bring us to multiple scenarios of agencies and government employees not following our new dictators orders. What follows that, and what are the implications? The system runs on a certain level of faith and trust. Trump is effing with that and he has no clue whatsoever.
No. It doesn't lead to multiple scenerios. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act detail requirements and limitations for a federal government to intervene.
You're just referring to what trump said about Chicago. But even in that single scenario, trump will interpret those as giving him permission to send "the feds". He will probably be told no, and then it what hapoens after that matters. You seem to be under the impression that trump is educated on anything about the federal government and is willing to respect the limits placed on it.
He also has a pen and a phone.
Yawn. Yup, he's just like Obama. Got it.
With the big difference being that Trump will not tolerate the carnage that is Chicago.
I wonder how Unsung feels about federal jack booted thugs occupying his city? Maybe he's okay with it seeing how it'll be predominately minority occupied neighborhoods that'll be occupied?
would
HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.
when did he do that? did he refuse to answer their questions at pressers?
I am not surprised that most of you are unfamiliar with Obama's record on press freedom and the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers but here's a little taste

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

oh please. a biased opinion piece. next.
Here are some unbiased facts for you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters

But I wouldn't be surprised if you brush this off as well. Press freedom was under assault and nobody made a peep.

Didn't you see what happened here? Hysterical post after hysterical post, raid fire, then a topic emerges (obama and media) and the evidence doesn't fit the majority narrative, then everyone went to lunch. Phil Collins drum kit!

BS44325 · January 2017

InHiding80 said:

BS44325 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

BS44325 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.

Gifs are silly.
Then what is this:

Another gif from your rolodex
Translation: He's white and republican so it's magically not mocking a disabled reporter and edited.

I think it is mocking a disabled reporter

BS44325 · January 2017

JC29856 said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

ledvedderman said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
No shit. I wonder what the chain of command is for something like that. Would Rahm or our piece of shit Governor Rauner have to make a request for the feds to step in?
Yes. The governor has to make the request. Think back to Katrina. Bush couldn't send troops until Governor Blanco made the official request.
Which bring us to multiple scenarios of agencies and government employees not following our new dictators orders. What follows that, and what are the implications? The system runs on a certain level of faith and trust. Trump is effing with that and he has no clue whatsoever.
No. It doesn't lead to multiple scenerios. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act detail requirements and limitations for a federal government to intervene.
You're just referring to what trump said about Chicago. But even in that single scenario, trump will interpret those as giving him permission to send "the feds". He will probably be told no, and then it what hapoens after that matters. You seem to be under the impression that trump is educated on anything about the federal government and is willing to respect the limits placed on it.
He also has a pen and a phone.
Yawn. Yup, he's just like Obama. Got it.
With the big difference being that Trump will not tolerate the carnage that is Chicago.
I wonder how Unsung feels about federal jack booted thugs occupying his city? Maybe he's okay with it seeing how it'll be predominately minority occupied neighborhoods that'll be occupied?
would
HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.
when did he do that? did he refuse to answer their questions at pressers?
I am not surprised that most of you are unfamiliar with Obama's record on press freedom and the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers but here's a little taste

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

oh please. a biased opinion piece. next.
Here are some unbiased facts for you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters

But I wouldn't be surprised if you brush this off as well. Press freedom was under assault and nobody made a peep.
Didn't you see what happened here? Hysterical post after hysterical post, raid fire, then a topic emerges (obama and media) and the evidence doesn't fit the majority narrative, then everyone went to lunch. Phil Collins drum kit!

Par for the course...

This also won't fit the narrative

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/poll-voters-liked-trumps-inaugural-address-234148

tbergs · January 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

ledvedderman said:

Go Beavers said:
Jesus H, he just threatened to bring "the feds"?!
No shit. I wonder what the chain of command is for something like that. Would Rahm or our piece of shit Governor Rauner have to make a request for the feds to step in?
Yes. The governor has to make the request. Think back to Katrina. Bush couldn't send troops until Governor Blanco made the official request.
Which bring us to multiple scenarios of agencies and government employees not following our new dictators orders. What follows that, and what are the implications? The system runs on a certain level of faith and trust. Trump is effing with that and he has no clue whatsoever.
No. It doesn't lead to multiple scenerios. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act detail requirements and limitations for a federal government to intervene.
You're just referring to what trump said about Chicago. But even in that single scenario, trump will interpret those as giving him permission to send "the feds". He will probably be told no, and then it what hapoens after that matters. You seem to be under the impression that trump is educated on anything about the federal government and is willing to respect the limits placed on it.
He also has a pen and a phone.
Yawn. Yup, he's just like Obama. Got it.
With the big difference being that Trump will not tolerate the carnage that is Chicago.
I wonder how Unsung feels about federal jack booted thugs occupying his city? Maybe he's okay with it seeing how it'll be predominately minority occupied neighborhoods that'll be occupied?
would
HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:
When you google censorship of the media...

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
C'mon Kat...you've censored far more people then Trump ever has. Sure this is a forum with rules to be enforced but federal agencies (which include national parks) also have rules with respect to communications and federal employees are expected to follow those rules. If employees of these agencies disagree with the politics of their leaders then they can resign. One has a right to free speech but they don't have the right to operate outside the rules of this forum or outside of the rules of their employer.
Kat specifically brought up censorship OF THE MEDIA. Totally different, and EXTREMELY dangerous to everyone's freedom.
Except nobody was concerned when Obama prosecuted members of the media or disparaged media sources on the right.
when did he do that? did he refuse to answer their questions at pressers?
I am not surprised that most of you are unfamiliar with Obama's record on press freedom and the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers but here's a little taste

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

oh please. a biased opinion piece. next.

I posted this earlier, but maybe you missed it. Obama was pleasant, but he went about his business with more tact.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-hypocritical-journalism-lecture-213775#ixzz44OGdL074

Blank Discussion Topic

Comments

Categories