Tuesday morning links

Now the left is arguing that the ban on immigration from these seven countries will make us less safe. Their theory is that it will offend the moderate Muslims who will embrace terrorism. The irony of this is thick. By their own words they believe that moderate Muslims can be radicalized that easily. Why than would you want people this susceptible to radicalization to live within your borders. If ever there was a good reason to turn this ban into a total Muslim ban this theory expresses it. Imagine how angry Muslims who are already here will be if we don't allow them to have sharia law? Or female genital mutilation? Or to create no-go zones?

#1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-02-07 10:15 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Now the left is arguing that the ban on immigration from these seven countries will make us less safe.

“I'm a four star general, and I'm banned from entering the U.S.?”

An Iraqi general working closely with the U.S. fighting ISIS in Iraq is now questioning his relationship with the Americans because of the ban. He's educated, knows Americans personally, has traveled to the U.S., his family is in the U.S. What of the average person on the street?

#1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 10:29 (Reply)

He's too thin skinned to be of use. It's not a problem, in fact, it's benefit.

But better policy includes massive repatriation.

#1.1.1 DrTorch on 2017-02-07 10:51 (Reply)

DrTorch: He's too thin skinned to be of use.

An Iraqi general risking his life to fight ISIS is too thin-skinned. That's funny.

In any case, if this is how an Iraqi general feels, one who works directly with some of the best that America has to offer, one who has visited the U.S., one whose family lives in the U.S. for their safety, then it suggests why other Iraqis may be questioning America's commitment to its own espoused values.

The rulers are detached from the concerns of those outside the center of their empire.

#1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 11:03 (Reply)

Considering the source from the link, CBS, we can be sure that there is a whole lot of back story, information that is relevant, but purposely left out, to the good Generals story.

#1.1.1.2 B Hammer on 2017-02-07 11:16 (Reply)

B Hammer: Considering the source from the link, CBS, we can be sure that there is a whole lot of back story, information that is relevant, but purposely left out, to the good Generals story.

The quotes seems self-explanatory.

“There are many American troops here in Iraq,” he said. “After this ban how are we supposed to deal with each other?”

However, feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

#1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 11:20 (Reply)

The evidence is that he lied. As Thought Kriminal has tried to point out, he went through it at least six times , the good General can enter the US (google has a nice translator page - although not sure it converts machine code to english. Are you able to communicate with your programmer?). He is now a proven liar, on such a simple thing, that there is no use in listening to much else he has to say.

#1.1.1.2.1.1 B. Hammer on 2017-02-07 21:00 (Reply)

B. Hammer: The evidence is that he lied.

There is no evidence he lied. At most, you think he is mistaken.

B. Hammer: the good General can enter the US

Only on official business. In any case, he is now questioning his relationship with the Americans because of the ban. He's educated, knows Americans personally, has traveled to the U.S., his family is in the U.S. What of the average person on the street?

#1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-08 09:55 (Reply)

you're as bad as zachriels, do five minutes of research on visas and you'll find another example of fake news.

but no, you've got to engage in a bitchslapping fight with her which is all she wants here.

#1.1.1.3 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 12:44 (Reply)

Fake news, which you bought because as usual, you don't understand most of what you blather. CBS doesn't either.

the general, because of his military rank, would be admissible under an A2 diplomatic visa which was excluded by the EO from the ban. you didn't read the EO. I could tell you where to find it, or explain what a "visa" is, but why cure your invincible ignorance?

Gen. Petraeus, who didn't dispute the need for the EO, is the source for this claim, in congressional testimony. he does not work for the state department, and there's no reason to assume he's familiar with immigration law. cite a source that shows the iraqi was denied entry. and don't like the CBS story, which is repeated everywhere, that doesn't actually say he was banned, and don't repeat Petraeus' testimony.

otherwise, the secretary of homeland security could waive the grounds of inadmissibility, if they actually existed, which they don't.

are you people that stupid? you'll believe anything the press says without getting off your fat ass to review obviously improbably claims like this.

#1.1.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 12:41 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: Fake news

It's not fake news to relay the factual statements of a high-ranking Iraqi military officer.

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: the general, because of his military rank, would be admissible under an A2 diplomatic visa

To qualify for an A-1 or A-2 visa, you must be traveling to the United States on behalf of your national government to engage solely in official activities for that government. Government officials traveling to the United States for other reasons require the appropriate visas and do not qualify for A visas. In other words, an A2 visa is not for visiting your family, or establishing residence.

In any case, as the Iraqi general's views make clear, many Iraqis consider the ban to mean the U.S. thinks Iraqis are presumptively terrorists, rather than to be treated as individuals. You might argue this is a mistaken view, but you can't argue it isn't prevalent. Furthermore there are many Americans who think there should be "a total Muslim ban".

#1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 14:37 (Reply)

A2 visas are available to brigadier generals, and do not limit the purpose of the visit to only one purpose, that's how this is interpreted in the real world that is separate from the five minutes you spent on google, and, of course, establishing residence is your own strawman because you don't sufficiently have a clue about what you're talking about. you don't think the DoD or Central Command would accommodate him?

the CBS story didn't say he was denied entry, the general didn't say he was denied entry. you -- who just admitted you don't fully understand plain English -- are reading into the story what you want to read. or you're just plain lying, again.

you've been burned, again, as usual.

he'd get a waiver from DHS in the event your improbable fantasy actually happens.

#1.1.2.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 15:06 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: A2 visas are available to brigadier generals, and do not limit the purpose of the visit to only one purpose

That is incorrect. "To qualify for an A-1 or A-2 visa, you must be traveling to the United States on behalf of your national government to engage solely in official activities."

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: the CBS story didn't say he was denied entry, the general didn't say he was denied entry

“I’m a four star general, and I’m banned from entering the U.S.?”

The point being — as you are apparently having troubles with plain English — is that if an Iraqi who is educated, of high rank, who works directly with the best people America has to offer, feels that the ban is making him unwelcome, then the average Iraqi probably feels at least as estranged from the U.S. due to the ban.

#1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 15:30 (Reply)

wrong, your limited English speaking skills and reliance on ipse dixit assertion bullshit prevent you from doing actual legal research or even knowing where to start much less knowing how consular officials operate under DHS or DoS guidelines, or the INA or 8CFR.

I know how to research this, because I just did, but I'm going to let you dangle, ignorant, and do what you always do:

the general is eligible for an A2 visa or a DHS waiver, because Global Warming.

sucks to be dumb and wrong, eh?

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 15:45 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: reliance on ipse dixit

In fact, the State Department is the relevant authority on the issue.

In any case, you ignored the actual point. Even if you disagree with the general, that is his opinion, and that opinion is probably representative of those who have even less contact with Americans.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 16:05 (Reply)

no, you English-impaired amateur. DoS memoranda are not the final say.

what an Iraqi general thinks is entirely irrelevant to what the EO means, except insofar as it provides you people with fake news bitch fodder.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 16:17 (Reply)

Again, you ignored the actual point.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 16:22 (Reply)

too late, loser. no more altering the issues, not playing your dumbshit games.

go buy a clue somewhere.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 16:31 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: too late

It's never too late for you to address the issue raised in our original post: An Iraqi general working closely with the U.S. fighting ISIS in Iraq is now questioning his relationship with the Americans because of the ban. He's educated, knows Americans personally, has traveled to the U.S., his family is in the U.S. What of the average person on the street?

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 18:00 (Reply)

Z: It's never too late for you to address the issue raised in our original post

I've been there. It works both ways, Z.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2017-02-07 18:04 (Reply)

mudbug: I've been there. It works both ways, Z.

Sure. This is your first comment on the thread, though.

This sub-thread began with GoneWithTheWind commenting on how some people think the ban could actually make the situation less safe. That's because many Iraqis may now question America's commitment and even their values. We provided a prominent example, someone we might expect to have a better understanding of the circumstances.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 18:21 (Reply)

I relate to the fact that when debating (all of) you, you leave the original subject far behind. I'm not sure how the fact that it is my first post on this tread relates to that.

I guess people can decide to question our commitment to many things - even for something as insignificant as delaying the immigration of a hundred or so people to the US until we decide who they are. Or maybe they are really wondering if Trump will do things like Obama did - leave a Pakistani who helped in the bin Laden raid to rot in jail, release high value captives for a deserter that caused the death of his comrades, allow Iran basically free reign in Iraq, or making a ridiculous deal with Iran to, among other things, agree to attack our best friend in the area, Israel, if they attacked Iran for any reason.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2017-02-07 23:18 (Reply)

mudbug: I'm not sure how the fact that it is my first post on this tread relates to that.

It relates directly. That an Iraqi general, one who works closely with Americans fighting ISIS, is now questioning American values and Iraq's relationship to the U.S. is significant. That he is emblematic of a view that is probably widespread among less connected Iraqis means that the political situation is rendered less stable.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-08 09:59 (Reply)

you think you get a second chance to continue your bullshit today?

you got your ass handed to you. grow up.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 18:42 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Now the left is arguing that the ban on immigration from these seven countries will make us less safe.

Trump moves spark Iraqi anger, calls against future alliance

Iraq is fighting ISIS, an enemy it has in common with the U.S.

#1.2 Zachriel on 2017-02-13 17:04 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Marie Claire Claims Trump to Ban Premarital Sex with Executive Order

Great example of fake news. Marie Claire accurately reports that a draft executive order would declare pre-marital sex to be wrong. FrontPage then uses the headline "Marie Claire Claims Trump to Ban Premarital Sex with Executive Order". The headline is then repeated across the right-wing blogosphere.

The purpose, of course, is to dilute the meaning of fake news, so it can no longer be meaningfully applied to, well, fake news.

#2 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 10:20 (Reply)

English is not your primary language, is it?

#2.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 12:49 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: English is not your primary language, is it?

We admit that English is a somewhat tricky language, but saying something is wrong and saying something is banned is saying quite different things.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-07 14:41 (Reply)

in the legal language of EOs, "declare" codes for going to regulate the subject of the EO. any native English speaker understands this.

you can't read modern business or legal English, as you admit, and this is not "tricky". so why not just take a back seat and learn from the adults.

#2.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 15:12 (Reply)

Sorry, but that doesn't make the headline any more accurate. It misrepresented the underlying story.

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-08 10:00 (Reply)

There's an old saying, follow the money. Soros is an evil man that sows derision for the purpose of lining his pocket book. I'm sure he is also funding the global warming hysteria (better known as weather patterns) for the purpose of lining his pocket. He his funding the radicals of the left. The violence is only going to get worse. The losing party (democrats, who never except the results of elections that they lose) will not distance themselves from it, because it advances there agenda.

#3 B Hammer on 2017-02-07 10:57 (Reply)

RE College socialists: We need more violence against Trump and his supporters to be effective

get a grip. these are 19 year olds.

#4 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 13:02 (Reply)

Well, if it is more violence they want, then I say we get some non-college 19 yr olds to wade into them and provide what they desire.

#4.1 JK Brown on 2017-02-07 13:36 (Reply)

"In Their Own Words: Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ Leaders Say They Want To Make America ‘Ungovernable’"

That's cute. When a Democrat is elected to the Oval Office, the Democrats always speculate about the country being ungovernable by one man. Now they want to make it ungovernable.

I would caution that the police, the government is simply hired help in Constitutional terms. If they reach a point where they won't or can't keep order, then the People must pick up the slack. You don't want the average hard working American having to keep order in his community when not at work. They will not have the patience of those who are paid to do that work. It will be restore order, have some family time, go to sleep, before heading off to work again.

Everything is governable, it's just a matter of applying the right amount of force.

#5 JK Brown on 2017-02-07 13:34 (Reply)

They're depending on the politeness of the right. As long as people aren't TOO annoyed or unhappy with the garbage they're pulling, they figure they have free range to get as 'extreme' as they want.

But patience comes to an end rather abruptly when pushed too far, and I'm wondering if we're about at that point...

#5.1 JLawson on 2017-02-07 14:39 (Reply)

Re: Christie Brinkley at 63 - keep in mind that with enough Photoshop, you can look just as good in a bikini as Christie Brinkley. Well, maybe not you you, but, you know, the indefinite "you".

#6 Jerryskids on 2017-02-07 14:30 (Reply)

Yeah, Photoshop helps...

So do good genetics.

And a diet advisor and a private chef and a private exercise coach, and a good hairdresser and a makeup artist...

;)

#6.1 JLawson on 2017-02-07 14:33 (Reply)

its mostly photoshop

#6.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-07 15:09 (Reply)

I'd prefer to think genetics. ;)

#6.1.1.1 JLawson on 2017-02-07 16:38 (Reply)

Well, after seeing any number of country music stars here in the middle TN area running grocery or hardware store errands, I can assure you that real life appearance is not the same as a digital image, edited or not.

Genetics and tons of money and free time are key here. If someone inherits DNA programmed for earlier loss of collagen, no amount of dieting, working out, or whatever else is considered not "letting themselves go" will help.

#6.1.1.1.1 tnxplant on 2017-02-07 21:28 (Reply)

..."Genetics and tons of money and free time are key here. If someone inherits DNA programmed for earlier loss of collagen, no amount of dieting, working out, or whatever else is considered not "letting themselves go" will help."...

It's pretty safe to say that if you're born looking like Lena Dunham, you won't die looking like Christie Brinkley.

Funny thing, though. As far as their personalities are concerned, both Lena and Christie seem pretty much ugly to the bone (albeit in different ways.)

Also, physically beautiful people might be swell to look at, but they often don't show much in the way of judgment. Just take a gander at Billy Joel and Peter Cook, an abusive, drunk, and an abusive, narcissistic philanderer, respectively. These two (and the two divorces besides) were apparently the only guys Christie could find to get serious with. Hint: after four blown marriages you --and not just your serial spouses-- are part of the problem.

In any case, if we are the sum total of our experiences, then Christie is ..."a long career as a supermodel, four divorces, three children and a discreet facelift"...

That, plus high-maintenance.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2229193/christie-brinkley-battles-while-billy-joel-marries-again/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1374682/Christine-Brinkley-57-gorgeous-man.html

#6.1.1.1.1.1 Krusty on 2017-02-08 07:46 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 7. 2017

Tuesday morning links