Liberal Forum

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 11:59 am » wrote:No, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter didn't do the same thing as Donald Trump's Muslim ban.

Supporters of the President's unprecedented Muslim ban are screaming hypocrisy.
But there are some important differences with what previous Presidents have done.

Yes they did.
They shut down refugees from specific countries, just like Trump.
Once again, Misty lies because she is incapable of telling the truth.

Misty's absurd source says the difference between what Trump has done, is that he based his on religion (a lie) and that it was done "out of the blue".
Trump campaigned on this during the entire election, how is that "out of the blue"?
******* liberals.

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 11:56 am » wrote: I haven't forgotten. You talk about being deliberately dishonest and invalidating my argument. I have not been dishonest. The original comment from a few years ago was that I wouldn't lose any sleep over 3 waterboarded terrorists, and that my comments only apply to those 3.

We don't get to cherry pick in support of cowardly policies.

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 11:56 am » wrote:I made it abundantly clear I was not supporting any other events or things you call torture.

It's abundantly clear that you do support torture, from the fact that you jumped in on the side of those arguing for it, AND from the sleazy manner in which you pretend that torture is something undefined in law and unidentifiable in fact. "The things YOU call torture."

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 11:56 am » wrote: I made it clear it did not apply to what you call torture chambers.

A place where tortures are routinely committed is not a torture chamber because I say so, fraud. It's a torture chamber because it's where the torture takes place.

Sneaking dishonest imputations into your apologia demonstrates your greasiness on the issue, torture boy.

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 11:56 am » wrote: I made it clear it did not apply to rendition nor did it apply to Abu Grahib. Whe3n it comes to dishonesty you conveniently leave those out.

The only dishonesty in anyone's argument is on your continued application of the line that I won't lose any sleep over three waterboarded terrorists to all things torture. You have extrapolated the comment to everything.

So if you wish to discuss dishonesty and invalidating arguments, look to yourself.

So no sir, I have neither been dishonest nor have I forgotten anything about the issue.

Nor have I torture boy.

The only reason you stickle on those "three wet terrorists" is that you dishonestly framed the debate around them in the first place.

The debate about torture has NOTHING TO DO with those three, asshole.

It has to do with what kind of government we want. You want one that can waterboard, and I want one that cannot.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 11:59 am » wrote:No, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter didn't do the same thing as Donald Trump's Muslim ban.

Supporters of the President's unprecedented Muslim ban are screaming hypocrisy..

Right on cue, there's little Miss Marxist regurgitating the latest Democrat Talking Point Lie.

There is no "Muslim ban," liar.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 12:02 pm » wrote: Seriously?
You want to rebut the fact that Rasmussen leans right by posting a link from WorldNUTDaily?

Great, great job at ignoring the fact they cited; that Rasmussen was right on the money last November and more accurate than the poll you cited.

You graduated with honors from Troll School, didn't you.

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2017 12:06 pm » wrote:We don't get to cherry pick in support of cowardly policies.
It's abundantly clear that you do support torture, from the fact that you jumped in on the side of those arguing for it, AND from the sleazy manner in which you pretend that torture is something undefined in law and unidentifiable in fact. "The things YOU call torture."
A place where tortures are routinely committed is not a torture chamber because I say so, fraud. It's a torture chamber because it's where the torture takes place.

Sneaking dishonest imputations into your apologia demonstrates your greasiness on the issue, torture boy.
Nor have I torture boy.

The only reason you stickle on those "three wet terrorists" is that you dishonestly framed the debate around them in the first place.

The debate about torture has NOTHING TO DO with those three, asshole.

It has to do with what kind of government we want. You want one that can waterboard, and I want one that cannot.

You are being dishonest again. I did not jump in on the side of those supporting torture. That was you extrapolating a comment about the three terrorists that were waterboarded.

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 12:10 pm » wrote: You are being dishonest again. I did not jump in on the side of those supporting torture. That was you extrapolating a comment about the three terrorists that were waterboarded.

There's that lie again: "the three terrorists that were waterboarded." Hundreds of people were waterboarded. Picking out three and supporting their torture supports torture, torture boi.

Huey » 30 Jan 2017 12:03 pm » wrote: I don't see a muslim ban. I see a temporary restriction on travel from the same countries that Obama dubbed countries of concern until vetting processes can be revamped.
This is the kind of MSM tactic that gets some of us up in arms.

Giuliani said that 45 asked his advice on how to do a 'Muslim ban' legally.
He called it that.

Obama may have dubbed them as countries of concern, but he didn't institute a ban.
I can understand doing some extra vetting before you give them a visa, or even putting a temporary pause on issuing visas until you design a better vetting process but this is overreach.

And it was enacted in a sloppy and chaotic manner.
No exceptions for people with green cards or people whose lives were in danger because they worked with us in Iraq.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 12:14 pm » wrote: Giuliani said that 45 asked his advice on how to do a 'Muslim ban' legally.
He called it that.

Guliani isn't part of this adminstration, and Trump and staff have said explicitly it's not a Muslim ban.
So why are you still lying that it is?

Because you're a Democrat Talking Point Liar.

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2017 12:14 pm » wrote:
There's that lie again: "the three terrorists that were waterboarded." Hundreds of people were waterboarded. Picking out three and supporting their torture supports torture, torture boi.

I don't deny it. You are missing the point. You are taking a comment that was referencing three (the other hundreds have not been proven) and applying it as blanket support for torture in general. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Next, I don't consider waterboarding torture. We treat our own soldiers worse in training.

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2017 12:14 pm » wrote:
There's that lie again: "the three terrorists that were waterboarded." Hundreds of people were waterboarded. Picking out three and supporting their torture supports torture, torture boi.

Where's a source for this, other than the usual voices in your head, psycho?

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 12:14 pm » wrote: Giuliani said that 45 asked his advice on how to do a 'Muslim ban' legally.
He called it that.

Obama may have dubbed them as countries of concern, but he didn't institute a ban.
I can understand doing some extra vetting before you give them a visa, or even putting a temporary pause on issuing visas until you design a better vetting process but this is overreach.

And it was enacted in a sloppy and chaotic manner.
No exceptions for people with green cards or people whose lives were in danger because they worked with us in Iraq.

Regardless of what your poorly written article says the intent of the temporary ban is no different than Obama's temp ban on Iraq in 2011. There are some issues that should have been thought out more but in essence it is the same.

You can only prove it is based on religion if people of other religions are allowed into the country from those countries.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 12:14 pm » wrote: Giuliani said that 45 asked his advice on how to do a 'Muslim ban' legally.
He called it that.

Obama may have dubbed them as countries of concern, but he didn't institute a ban.
I can understand doing some extra vetting before you give them a visa, or even putting a temporary pause on issuing visas until you design a better vetting process but this is overreach.

And it was enacted in a sloppy and chaotic manner.
No exceptions for people with green cards or people whose lives were in danger because they worked with us in Iraq.

Obama banned refugees from Iraq.
Why would exceptions be given under a temporary order to determine how to vet these people?
Do you think Green Card holders and people that "worked with us in Iraq" shouldn't be vetted?

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 11:59 am » wrote:No, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter didn't do the same thing as Donald Trump's Muslim ban.

Supporters of the President's unprecedented Muslim ban are screaming hypocrisy.
But there are some important differences with what previous Presidents have done.

Your article has already been debunked.
It claims the difference between Obama and Carter vs Trump is that the Dummycrat Presidents didn't ban a religion.
Either did Trump. That's why it's directed at COUNTRIES.

And it claims that Trump "did it out of the blue". Yea, right after a YEAR of campaigning on this action. That's some "out of the blue" moment.

Good question Andrew.
That was my first thought when I saw 45's Tweet.
They couldn't come without a visa and they couldn't get a visa in a week.
Another lie, or alternative fact.

This is weird.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 12:50 pm » wrote:Good question Andrew.
That was my first thought when I saw 45's Tweet.
They couldn't come without a visa and they couldn't get a visa in a week.
Another lie, or alternative fact.

^^ Doesn't understand that many people all over the world have Visas that allow them entry into this country, but are not coming here yet.
If a cutoff date were announced, they COULD book their travel immediately and come.
What part of this was difficult for Misty and Andrew to understand?

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 12:52 pm » wrote:This is weird.

What's weird, your self absorption?

White House press conference just now....

Sean Spicer accuses Senate Democrats of playing political games by saying 'absolutely no' to any 45 SCOTUS nominee before they even know who the person is.

Spicer says it's 'all about politics' and it's 'not about qualifications.'
He says the president has a right to have his nominees taken up.

Really?
Because they were saying the opposite when they refused to even meet with Merrick Garland a man who they once praised and who 7 current Senators voted for when he was appointed to the court of appeals.

Flashback to last year:

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in an audio recording of his meeting with GOP volunteers on Saturday.

CNN obtained a copy of the audio.

GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas have also suggested blocking any Clinton nominees.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a debate Monday night that he “can’t imagine” voting for any Clinton nominee though he stopped short of vowing to block a pick from a Democratic president.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cli ... eme-court/

Why do my posts look like this?
I wonder if it's just on my tablet?

Edit: Apparently it is only on my tablet.

Misty » 30 Jan 2017 2:21 pm » wrote:White House press conference just now....

Sean Spicer accuses Senate Democrats of playing political games by saying 'absolutely no' to any 45 SCOTUS nominee before they even know who the person is.

Spicer says it's 'all about politics' and it's 'not about qualifications.'
He says the president has a right to have his nominees taken up.

Really?
Because they were saying the opposite when they refused to even meet with Merrick Garland a man who they once praised and who 7 current Senators voted for when he was appointed to the court of appeals.

Flashback to last year:

Republicans opposed Garland using the Biden rule, because it was the end of Obama's Presidency. His nominations of Sotomayor and Kagen sailed through with no filibuster.
What democrats are doing, us unprecedented, regardless how you lie about it.