Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1219 of 5796 (850650)
04-11-2019 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1217 by Faith
04-11-2019 12:43 PM


Re: Dems Attack Barr for Remark about Spying on Trump Campaign
Faith writes:
There has actually been plenty of evidence of spying that came out in 2016.
If there were evidence then Attorney General William Barr would have said there was evidence during his testimony before Congress, instead of saying the opposite. You're responding to my message that contains a short video clip of Barr actually saying he has no evidence, just concerns. Here it is again:
It wasn't Carlson or Hannity though, I believe it was Mark Levin who gave lots of evidence with dates.
If Mark Levin gave lots of evidence then please tell us what it was. And tell Barr, too, because he's obviously unaware that all this evidence exists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1217 by Faith, posted 04-11-2019 12:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1228 by Faith, posted 04-11-2019 9:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1240 of 5796 (850750)
04-13-2019 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1228 by Faith
04-11-2019 9:37 PM


Re: Dems Attack Barr for Remark about Spying on Trump Campaign
Faith writes:
Percy writes:
Faith writes:
There has actually been plenty of evidence of spying that came out in 2016.
If there were evidence then Attorney General William Barr would have said there was evidence during his testimony before Congress, instead of saying the opposite. You're responding to my message that contains a short video clip of Barr actually saying he has no evidence, just concerns.
I suspect he's pretty sure there is evidence there, but he has to do the investigation to find out for sure and to make the case.
On what basis do you suspect he's pretty sure there's evidence there while not saying so, thereby creating the strong suspicion he's on a fishing expedition. Hemming and hawing like this only contributed to that impression, you only need to watch 15 seconds:
From your previous Message 1217:
Faith in Message 1217 writes:
It wasn't Carlson or Hannity though, I believe it was Mark Levin who gave lots of evidence with dates.
Can you describe all this evidence that Mark Levin gave, or explain why Barr is unaware of it, or why, given all this evidence, the Justice Department wasn't already investigating before Barr ever became Attorney General. If so much evidence actually existed, wouldn't William Sessions have jumped at the chance to initiate an investigation that Trump would have loved, perhaps thereby saving his job?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1228 by Faith, posted 04-11-2019 9:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1264 of 5796 (850907)
04-17-2019 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1263 by dwise1
04-16-2019 6:19 PM


Re: Pro Life Movie a big success
I know nothing about Christian movies and so won't comment on their production skills or lack thereof, but most movies and TV shows today are pretty bad even though the production quality is often excellent. Often it's the plot, where you have to invent your own rationalizations in order to make what just happened make sense.
My biggest criticism is about action movies. We don't usually watch action movies, but during a holiday visit the kids had us watch the series of Thor movies, one per night. They seemed typical of the modern action movie. There is a great deal of gratuitous action which makes no sense (and often isn't physically possible) and isn't necessary to or doesn't even fit the storyline. Tiny but important details are shown for only a second, and you're supposed to remember them because they'll explain what comes later. Often events occur so fast and furiously that even if they do make sense it's impossible to figure it all out or commit it to memory in the moment. All that being said, I greatly enjoyed the Thor movies, but we did have to pause regularly so the kids could explain things.
For action movies give me True Lies or Top Gun. For drama give me Casablanca. For comedies give me Manhattan, Groundhog Day or Home Alone. For quirky give me Clerks. For science fiction give me Oblivion or Jurassic Park II or Total Recall (the 1990 one with Schwarzenegger). For animated films give me Wall-E or Up. For fantasy just leave me home - definitely not a Harry Potter or hobbit fan.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1263 by dwise1, posted 04-16-2019 6:19 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1268 by Theodoric, posted 04-17-2019 10:00 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1299 of 5796 (850967)
04-18-2019 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1268 by Theodoric
04-17-2019 10:00 AM


Re: Pro Life Movie a big success
Theodoric writes:
I rarely see movies anymore. I just cannot stand the idiocy. I have a 9 year old and 12 year old so I do see kids movies. Kids movies seem to be where the quality is. Coco and Ferdinand were excellent. I also thought Zootopia, Sing and The Secret Life of Pets were excellent.
Almost completely agree on all these movies except I haven't seen Ferdinand. You might also enjoy Home and Moana. I also liked Madagascar, Ice Age I, Finding Nemo and Finding Dory.
You can add The Imitation Game (Alan Turing) to any list of highly inaccurate historical movies. It was a nice movie, I liked it, but I've read a couple Turing biographies (The Enigma Machine was best) and it was highly romanticized, technically way oversimplified to the point of wrong (although to be fair some technical parts were spot on, and I think they had to oversimplify or they would have left 99% of their audience behind), some parts were out of order, and it somehow manages to tell very little of the story.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1268 by Theodoric, posted 04-17-2019 10:00 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1318 of 5796 (851048)
04-18-2019 3:20 PM


--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 1376 of 5796 (851277)
04-22-2019 7:16 AM


John Oliver's Take on the Mueller Report
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1377 of 5796 (851413)
04-24-2019 9:42 AM


Movie: Little Woods
Little Woods is another movie about abortion. The plot is briefly outlined in A Different Movie About Abortion:
quote:
Set in rural North Dakota near the Canadian border, Ollie (Tessa Thompson) is serving her final week on probation for illegal oxycodone sales. Her sister Deb (Lily James) is unexpectedly pregnant and figuring out how to care for her young son, maintain their trailer-van home and get to the nearest abortion clinic. With no other options for income, Ollie reluctantly returns to selling oxycodone.
“Little Woods” is more realistic about why American women have abortions than most other pop-culture treatments of the subject. In the film, Deb attempts to start prenatal care, but when faced with a four-to-six-week wait and an $8,000 price tag (without insurance) to give birth, she decides to have an abortion.
...
The truth is, 59 percent of abortion patients have given birth at least once before, a majority are women of color, and three-quarters in 2014 were low-income.
The cost of pregnancy and child-rearing is a common aspect of what reproductive justice advocates call economic coercion: Some people have abortions simply because they cannot afford to have a child and the government does not provide adequate safety-net services such as food, transportation and housing resources to support people taking care of another baby. What “Little Woods” does give Deb, though, is emotional support: Though Ollie is adopted, she stands by her sister rather than using her own adoption to urge Deb to make a different decision.
“Little Woods” is also revelatory about the logistical challenges involved in having an abortion. After a series of devastating mishaps, the sisters ultimately make a road trip to Canada for an abortion because the only clinic in their state is hundreds of miles away.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1378 by Theodoric, posted 04-24-2019 10:24 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1380 by Faith, posted 04-24-2019 11:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 1542 of 5796 (851721)
05-01-2019 11:06 AM


What I'm Learning From the Charlottesville Discussion
  • When you have a good argument, use explication. When you don't have a good argument, use shouting and insults.
  • When explication of a good argument is ignored or responded to with shouting and insults, some resort to insults.
  • Trump can utter words to muddy any waters.
  • In many cases it is better to judge Trump by his actions, such as his recent proposal to make asylum requests even more difficult.
  • People who aren't racist treat people of other races, especially those less fortunate, with compassion and dignity.
  • Robert E. Lee's views on slavery are often characterized as complicated, but to my mind they were no more so than many other Southerners who justified slavery on made-up grounds they found palatable and pleasing while giving economic factors a minor role.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1543 by Phat, posted 05-01-2019 12:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1544 by Faith, posted 05-01-2019 1:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1553 by Chiroptera, posted 05-01-2019 2:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1609 of 5796 (851859)
05-03-2019 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1568 by PaulK
05-02-2019 12:13 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
PaulK writes:
Your “explanation” doesn’t make a lot of sense either:
quote:
Trump made that clear when he offered to bus all the illegals he could to sanctuary cities, and then we all watched them cry about that.
The “sanctuary cities” are obviously dealing with their share of the problems. Why should they want additional problems foisted on them?
I think it important to explicitly note what Trump was really doing. He wasn't attempting to address problems and issues surrounding immigration. He was attempting to get sanctuary cities to knuckle under by threatening to overwhelm their social and economic resources.
If it takes shared national sacrifice to solve the immigration problem then so be it, but that is unlikely because immigration enriches a country, especially by the 2nd and 3rd generations. A steady flow of immigrants (i.e., a healthy and sustained immigration pipeline) is necessary to a country's success.
quote:
Contrary to politically correct beliefs, the North, in 1865, wasn't all lovie dovie at the thought of newly freed blacks running around in their cities. There is evidence of RACISM toward blacks in northern cities, by businesses and politicians, for 70, 80, 90 years after the civil war ended. Would you like to see a little of that evidence?
Any such evidence would be irrelevant to my position. Of course there were racists everywhere.
I'm not sure what Marc was trying to say here, or why he was trying to say it. That both North and South were racist before, during and after the Civil War is not in doubt, but it was only the South that insisted on maintaining slavery, and only the South that after the war did all they could to keep blacks enslaved (in effect if not in reality) to the extent possible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1568 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2019 12:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1613 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 1:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1621 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2019 3:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1667 by marc9000, posted 05-05-2019 5:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1634 of 5796 (851912)
05-04-2019 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1632 by Theodoric
05-04-2019 8:25 AM


Re: Eisenhower's deportation
Theodoric writes:
I want to know what you think Eisenhower did. I know about Eisenhower and immigrants.
I think the Eisenhower mention was just an endorsement of anti-immigration policies. This isn't the first time the US has turned anti-immigration. Part of the history of US immigration policy is captured in New York City's lower east side where Irish immigrants were replaced by German immigrants were replaced by Italian immigrants were replaced by Jewish immigrants (I probably have the order wrong) were replaced by no one because US immigration policy changed. The upper floors of the tenements emptied and were boarded up by the 1940's, only the lowest floors still occupied by shopkeepers. All the previous generations had assimilated and done well enough to move to more upscale parts of the city.
For me the key point is the role of immigration as a wellspring of new social and economic energy. For countries with low birthrates like ours immigration is important to maintaining population and thereby our competitiveness on the world stage. Without immigration we know what our future will be: Japan.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1632 by Theodoric, posted 05-04-2019 8:25 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1635 by Chiroptera, posted 05-04-2019 10:11 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1636 by Theodoric, posted 05-04-2019 10:11 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1707 of 5796 (852104)
05-07-2019 10:51 AM


When Confederate Monuments Were Built is Important
Here's a graph of when confederate monuments were built:
This image is so large that if you expand it you have to pan around to read it, so it's best to leave it at this size. The legend at the bottom is too small to see, but what it shows is that the vast bulk of confederate monuments were erected between 1900 and 1920 when the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacy and Jim Crow laws were at a peek. They weren't erected as war memorials but as one of many means used during the period to discriminate against blacks.
The oft-mentioned Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville is from this period, commissioned in 1917 and unveiled in 1924. It reflects rampant southern racism, white supremacy, black intimidation, and black disenfranchisement. As history it is a record of these southern white attitudes rather than a tribute to a southern war hero.
I'm a historical preservationist, so I lean toward keeping such statues where practical but think they should all be accurately contextualized. I accept the arguments that it should be asked whether any given monument remains appropriate in its current prominent location.
I think Faith's "men of their time" arguments for Southern Civil heroes have significant merit. I can't understand the thinking of men who, for example, in their wills granted their slaves freedom upon their deaths (why not immediately) but beat or whipped them as punishment (though whipping was not an uncommon punishment for the period no matter the race), but most people accept the norms of their societies, no matter how foreign or wrong they may seem to later generations. We should conserve such records of the past, not obliterate them. They serve as reminders that cruelty often doesn't seem cruel to those under its sway.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1709 by Faith, posted 05-07-2019 12:34 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1745 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2019 8:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1764 of 5796 (852213)
05-08-2019 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1758 by PaulK
05-08-2019 1:09 PM


Re: Former Federal Prosecutors on Obstruction
PaulK writes:
In some cases he avoided obstruction only because his staff refused to follow his orders.
If I've properly understood what's been written about chargeable obstruction, attempting to obstruct is all that's required, succeeding isn't. For example, this is from How to get away with obstructing justice:
quote:
Legally, an attempt at obstruction of justice is still a crime, even if it fails.
You reply to Faith:
And no, there is nothing clear about your assertions about the Mueller report - other than your desire to whitewash Trump.
quote:
It's all the usual partisan empty accusation with no substance to it. A version of Fake News.
In other words, truths you want suppressed.
The questions I'd ask are, if Trump has done nothing wrong, why is he acting to withhold information from Congress? If he honestly believes the Mueller report is (paraphrasing) "Complete exoneration, no collusion, no obstruction," then why is he against Congress seeing the full report?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1758 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2019 1:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1766 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2019 1:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1800 of 5796 (852283)
05-08-2019 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1796 by ooh-child
05-08-2019 5:49 PM


Re: Racist actions?
ooh-child writes:
The White House is planning a travel ban on Trump’s shithole countries.
'Further undermining the administration’s collective punishment plan is the fact that overstays aren’t a major problem to begin with. Based on the government’s own data, last year DHS could confirm that 99.24 percent of foreign visitors had either “departed the United States on time and in accordance with the terms of their admission” or had left within the next six months.'
That's a lot of overstays. This excerpt from Homeland Security's Fiscal Year 2018 Entry/Exit Overstay Report gives the raw number of admissions and repeats the same percentage you gave:
quote:
DHS has determined that there were 54,706,966 in-scope nonimmigrant admissions to the United States through air or sea POEs with expected departures occurring in FY 2018, which represents the majority of air and sea annual nonimmigrant admissions.
...
As of March 1, 2019, DHS has been able to confirm the departures or adjustment of status of more than 99.24 percent of nonimmigrants scheduled to depart in FY 2018 via air and sea POEs.
Doing the multiplication, that's about 416,000 overstays just last year alone. Some years it's higher, some lower. According to Politifact, about 42% of illegal immigrants are overstays.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1796 by ooh-child, posted 05-08-2019 5:49 PM ooh-child has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1909 of 5796 (852664)
05-15-2019 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1898 by 14174dm
05-14-2019 10:21 PM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
14174dm writes:
A internet search for "Mueller report text" will pull up a large list of sites with the full report. I am trying to copy/paste quotes but can't get the software to cooperate.
Link to searchable/copyable Mueller report (loads fast).
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add comment about loading fast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1898 by 14174dm, posted 05-14-2019 10:21 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1929 of 5796 (852715)
05-16-2019 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1921 by PaulK
05-16-2019 3:42 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
Just wanted to comment on some things and give my own understanding on others:
PaulK writes:
quote:
There is no evidence supporting obstruction. It's all things that didn't happen, it's stuff Trump said but didn't do
You mean Trump ordering obstruction, but his subordinates refusing to carry out those orders ? Surely you see that isn’t a good thing.
An obstructive order to a subordinate is obstruction, whether or not the subordinate obeys. An attempt at an obstructive act is obstruction, whether or not it succeeds.
quote:
And the things he did do didn't obstruct anything.
In fact we know that Trump’s refusal to testify hampered the collusion investigation, to at least some degree.
This is a key point that (appropriately) didn't receive any mention in the Mueller report and (inexplicably) received little mention in the press, that the collusion evidence might have been much stronger had there been no obstruction.
quote:
....I don't think he found anything criminal so there was nothing to indict Trump for
That isn’t the question at all. The question is whether Mueller intended to indict Trump if he could find the evidence to do so. You say he did, Mueller says he didn’t. I see no reason to disbelieve Mueller on this point.
You're right about Mueller expressing no intention of indicting a sitting president, and DWise1 quoted the entire relevant section in his Message 1912. It's written in plain and easily comprehensible English, not legalese.
quote:
The bulk of the second part of his report is all the usual innuendo intended to feed the ravenous Trump maligners, not even anything that should have been in such a report.
In other words evidence that justifies charges of obstruction.
I think those charging that the report contained innuendo instead of evidence provided by testimony and documentation should provide examples.
quote:
I hope Barr's investigation of the investigation finally gets at the truth in all this phony stuff aimed at bringing down Trump.
In other words you want a cover-up and persecution of any potential whistle-blowers. Another move in the destruction of liberty. Just as I expected from you. And why not when you try to smear anyone pointing out that Barr is a dishonest Trump partisan ?
I do agree that any investigation should be to get at the truth, but there is mounting evidence that for Barr that priority is subordinate to his expansive view of presidential power.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1921 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 3:42 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024