• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bowling Green Massacre

ddt said:
It was indeed. And the revision seriously slowed down the number of refugees admitted. But it never amounted to a ban, which is what KellyLiarAnne claimed.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. The ban is supposed to be so Trump "can figure out what the hell is going on," is it not?

Has he figured it out? :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This post suggests you have lost sight of the key point. Trump claims we need "extreme vetting". He has yet to prove that is true beyond his incessant fear mongering.

What say you? Have you been snookered by Trump's unsupported claim our current vetting processes are inadequate?
Click to expand...

The fact that Donald Trump is POTUS suggests somebody lost sight of some key points.


I have no real knowledge of our vetting processes, so I don't know. I know that I feel safe and do not live in fear of attack by Muslim terrorists. I have a slight fear of gun toting crazy people, most of whom aren't Muslim. When it comes to our vetting processes, I trust the professionals. Sadly, Donald Trump does not.

When it comes to the recent executive order, I think the manner in which it was implemented shows an callous disregard for humanitarian concerns, and reflects badly on our President and on our country as a whole. As for the overall need to strengthen the policy, I'm unpersuaded, but open to argument either way.

However, this thread has a title of "Bowling Green Massacre". My participation has mostly centered on KellyAnne Conway's use of that phrase, and the controversy surrounding it. It is interesting how many people assume that I must have sympathy for the Trump policy if I suggest that one line of attack on the administration's policy is either not legitimate or not effective. It's an aspect of our polarized society. Everyone is expected to be in one camp or another, and if you are in one camp, you are never supposed to acknowledge any case in which the other camp could be in any way correct, nor even forgiven for being wrong in any way.

I don't think it was always that way. I don't think it was that way when I was a child or young adult in the '70s and '80s. It seems to have gotten much worse during the Clinton/Gingrich era, which probably is due to the rise of the internet during that time.

However, I digress. I think Trump is an unworthy person to be President. I do not trust him to formulate foreign policy, including immigration policy. As President, he has access to very knowledgeable people who could help him formulate very effective policy that would balance humanitarian, economic, and security concerns, but I doubt he will listen to them.
 
Foolmewunz said:
The Press Corps should just sucker-punch him.
"Phil Fleegle KPTV News, here: Mr. Spicer, we realize that you simply stated Atlanta when you meant to say Orlando. Do we understand that you are saying those three attacks could have been prevented by this travel ban?"

Spicer: "Fleeble flobble security smopple poop we need to be safe."

"Rad Weatherwax Dog Breeders Monthly, Mr. Spicer. The President, then, wants to ban travelers from Russia, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Because that's where those shooters' families originated. But I notice that none of those countries are on the list."




"
Click to expand...

No. Dueling. I hear that NJ has no specific laws against it. Maybe we could change the State motto:

Come to NJ: "We'll See You in the ICU"
 
quadraginta said:
Is there a point at which you ever quit giving these slimeballs "the benefit of the doubt", or is it a permanent Get Out Of Jail Free card?
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi


Weird post. Once, and only once, I think Spicer misspoke out of callous indifference to facts, while condemning all the lying and newspeak/thoughtcrime games they are playing. How do you contort that to your question above?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, the Bowling Green thing doesn't matter. The only point I had there was that the supposed deficient vetting is a myth. Trumpers are still bringing up the Bowling Green duo as if they prove Trump's point. But even if so, changes to vetting already followed the arrest of the dynamic duo.
Click to expand...
Yes. But it's not just that it's a myth. It's that the effectiveness is being used as evidence of its ineffectiveness. It's a shell game of facts that just assumes that it does not matter what one says if it's perceived to be from your point of view. The non reporting of an event is proven by its reporting.

It's like the secret CD that "they" won't allow to be published, which used to be offered in about 50 spams a day for a while. The big glossy book of a thousand tricks "they" don't want you to see.

I recall seeing a TV ad some years ago for a brand name bleach. The ad showed a person using "bargain" bleach, and not enough of it, and then stressed that the user's mistake was not to use twice as much of the brand name bleach. If you listened hurriedly you might actually think they were saying the brand name bleach was better.

I think in the trump world we're beyond just plain old lies, and in to the conspiracy warp where reality is upside down, and things mean their opposites. It's like the devotees of nonexistent crypto-creatures using the discovery of real ones as proof.

I guess I'm in a grumpy mood tonight. It seems we're being ruled by shameless hucksters, elected by their clueless marks.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I could see this POV. But Conway gave herself away when she momentarily choked on the term, "alternative facts", when talking to Chuck Todd, then couldn't keep a straight face immediately after.

Watch and see: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...secretary-gave-alternative-facts-860142147643

The choke on the word happens starting a second before minute 2 and the smile slips in just after that.

Skip the first 2 minutes, it's just Conway trying to equate their false facts with the mistake about the bust of MLK in the Oval Office being removed.
Click to expand...

quadraginta said:
I'm not inclined to be that forgiving with her, taking into account her past record of dissembling.

But even if it were to be the case, that doesn't really make things any better, At her level of authority she bears a responsibility to vet the substance of the "facts" she regurgitates. The buck has to stop somewhere. The Trump sure ain't gonna take it, and there's nobody else above her in the chain of responsibility.

If she doesn't know what she's talking about she should just shut up.
Click to expand...

trustbutverify said:
On a scale of 1-10, how incompetent and willfully negligent does a top-level presidential Counselor have to be in order to convince themselves that something called the "Bowling Green Massacre" occurred without a shred of evidence?
Click to expand...

This is all fair. She sucks. Arguably her most astonishing turn -- after "alternative facts" -- was going from spokeshole for Cruz to Trump. She used to cry about Donald releasing his tax returns, screwing over small business owners, and being a vulgar, ****** human being. She's a total whore. Despite the general whoreiness, however, I think she was just mistaken about this "massacre." Yes, the incompetence got turned up to 11.
 
Cain said:
This is all fair.... She's a total whore. Despite the general whoreiness, however, I think she was just mistaken about this "massacre." Yes, the incompetence got turned up to 11.
Click to expand...
Why? you have evidence lying is part of her schtick. She repeated the same Bowling Green massacre "mistake" more than once. As for incompetence, she's taken the Trump scam all the way to the bank.

You may want to reconsider that conclusion of yours. Just sayin'.
 
Cain said:
This is all fair. She sucks. Arguably her most astonishing turn -- after "alternative facts" -- was going from spokeshole for Cruz to Trump. She used to cry about Donald releasing his tax returns, screwing over small business owners, and being a vulgar, ****** human being. She's a total whore. Despite the general whoreiness, however, I think she was just mistaken about this "massacre." Yes, the incompetence got turned up to 11.
Click to expand...

Oh, with Kellyanne I don't think we've even scratched the surface. She's admitted that facts don't matter that it's what the suckers believe that's important. She doesn't really care about decorum in discussions - just interrupting with her hand-waves and distractions, and now shes willing to flaunt (and I'm mean, literally) her disregard for ethics in flogging Ivanka's brand and then bragging that she met with her wonderful boss who supports her 100% on the issue.

We used to have a word for people who sell themselves. Wish it didn't have such a misogynist history because it's the most appropriate description of Kellyanne Conway.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I would think "pathological liar" was both a libel and a diagnosis, so they'd need to prove it in court or suffer serious financial loss. However, I see no reason why they couldn't say, for example, "Kellyanne Conway, well-known for her infamous references to the imaginary Bowling Green Massacre and her coining of the term "alternative facts", today issued a statement that 73% of Mexican immigrants are known rapists. This was backed up by Sean Spicer, well known for the false claim that the crowds at President Trump's inauguration were larger than those at President Obama's. There is no reason to suspect this latest claim is any more true."

In fact, that's pretty close to what the BBC is doing already.

Dave
Click to expand...

bbc is in a country with libel law putting somewhat the onus of proof on the defendant, so the turning of phrase is probably something they are used to
 
The purpose behind misstatements on facts of history is to provoke the media into rehashing the issue in exhaustive detail yet again, which just keeps the subject of discussion on terrorism and fear.

It's not enough to 'reject the premise', we should reject the idea that this is even a subject worthy of so much attention. Lightning strikes, drunk drivers, and falling out of bed are more likely to kill or injure you than a terrorist. Yet it has consumed our national attention for over a decade as if it is some looming and ever-present threat that hovers over us all and could snuff our lives out at any second(!).
 
Cain said:
This is all fair. She sucks. Arguably her most astonishing turn -- after "alternative facts" -- was going from spokeshole for Cruz to Trump. She used to cry about Donald releasing his tax returns, screwing over small business owners, and being a vulgar, ****** human being. She's a total whore. Despite the general whoreiness, however, I think she was just mistaken about this "massacre." Yes, the incompetence got turned up to 11.
Click to expand...
Do you think maybe her wanting it to be true, and possibly not caring that much if it was or not, played a role in her forming this belief? And, if so, wouldn't that process make it a little different than "just mistaken"?
 
trustbutverify said:
Do you think maybe her wanting it to be true, and possibly not caring that much if it was or not, played a role in her forming this belief? And, if so, wouldn't that process make it a little different than "just mistaken"?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that there is strong sense on the right that some balance has been lost when it comes to journalism, and therefore it is ok to overshoot the target when making your point: yes, you've gone to far, but it's the only way "even out" the anti-Trump rhetoric.
As always, there is a strong"end justifies the means" element to everything Trump and the GOp do and have done.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This post suggests you have lost sight of the key point. Trump claims we need "extreme vetting". He has yet to prove that is true beyond his incessant fear mongering.

What say you? Have you been snookered by Trump's unsupported claim our current vetting processes are inadequate?
Click to expand...


Which I suppose would be even more extreme vetting than we already have in place thanks to Obama..

He hasn't shared what such procedures might consist of, either.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It seems to me that there is strong sense on the right that some balance has been lost when it comes to journalism, and therefore it is ok to overshoot the target when making your point: yes, you've gone to far, but it's the only way "even out" the anti-Trump rhetoric.
As always, there is a strong"end justifies the means" element to everything Trump and the GOp do and have done.
Click to expand...


"Lying for Jesus".
 
A'isha said:
Especially since even the details are wrong. The Orlando shooter was a US citizen born in the US, whose family was not from one of the seven countries on Trump's ban list, and whose only overseas travel was to countries not on Trump's ban list, so Trump's ban wouldn't have done a single thing to prevent the attack from occurring.
Click to expand...

Logic won't work, because it isn't about those countries is it about banning muslims, so as long as the attackers are muslims it counts. being radicalized in the US counts for as much in this as thinking that having many mass shootings tied to stormwatch will get it treated as any muslim organization so focused on radicalizing terrorists.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm confused. The ban is supposed to be so Trump "can figure out what the hell is going on," is it not?

Has he figured it out? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's hard to figure it out when you don't look into it, methinks. :rolleyes:

And yes, KellyAnne Goebbels actually claimed that Obama had instituted a "ban" on immigration, with the obvious implication that it isn't bad at all what the Orange Führer does. For a summing-up of what she actually said and all that's wrong with it, see my post #100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom