OT: He was five years old...

[Alan Baker]

...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve protection
at all costs.

'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than
four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a
“security risk”.

The boy, reportedly a US citizen with an Iranian mother, was one of more
than 100 people detained following President Donald Trump’s immigration
order.

In a press briefing, Mr Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer was
unrepentant about the incident.

He said: “To assume that just because of someone’s age and gender that
they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong.”

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-five-year-old-boy-detained-dulles-international-airport-hours-sean-spicer-pose-security-a7554521.html>

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> ...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve protection
> at all costs.
>
> 'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than
> four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a

> ?security risk?.
>>
>

Wow four hours.
What a hardship.
--

[Dene]

The lying troll <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Everyone's a victim in Lefty-Land.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-31 9:36 PM, Dene wrote:
>> The lying troll <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>> ...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve protection
>>> at all costs.
>>>
>>> 'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than
>>> four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a
>>> ?security risk?.
>> Wow four hours.
>> What a hardship.

>Everyone's a victim in Lefty-Land.

So much for Americans first, huh?

[Carbon]

On 02/01/2017 12:36 AM, Dene wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>
>> ...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve
>> protection at all costs.
>>
>> 'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more
>> than four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he
>> posed a ?security risk?.
>
> Wow four hours. What a hardship.

I agree completely. What possible benefit can there be in terrorizing a
little kid?

[Moderate]

"Alan Baker" <LastWor...@tTwats.net> Wrote in message:

> Moderate wrote:
>>
>> Wow four hours.
>> What a hardship.
>

> Perhaps they had read my earlier post about kids and guns.
>
> Yesterday you were "claiming" it was all to protect the children, today
> you are defending young children being handcuffed; how can you be
> *that* scared?
>
> Does anyone fall outside your definition of a 'security risk'?
>
> Or perhaps your proclivities involve handcuffing young children or
> fantasies about such things; no big deal eh?
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>

There is no evidence of handcuffs.
--

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:36:02 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>The lying troll <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> ...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve protection
>> at all costs.
>>
>> 'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than

>> four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a s?security risk?.

>>>
>>
>
>Wow four hours.
> What a hardship.

Moderate is a fool, AND an asshole. But I'm surprised at you Greg.
If it was your child it would be ok?

[Dene]

Detained for 4 hours...no problem. Take a nap sonny.
Handcuffed...different story. Have not seen any mainstream link substantiating this.

Fake news???

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

And if someone provides you a link, you'll find some new way to excuse it.

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Provide a cite.
--

[Alan Baker]

If Greg asks...

[bobby...@onramp.net]

The White House stated it. There were many sites that reported it.
The only contrary thing that I saw was on Scopes. They said that a
picture on one site (didn't say which one) was a fake..one taken some
time before in the U.S. by a cop. Not of the boy at Dulles.

[Dene]

-----------

Well I would like to see the cite.
You believe this happened?

There is one part about the travel ban that perplexes me. Why Iraq? We are partnered with them in the fight against ISIS. Why piss them off or show disrespect. The rest of the ban I have no trouble with.
Do you believe it's a Muslim ban?

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-01 7:17 PM, Dene wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:39:09 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:49:40 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:36:02 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The lying troll <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>> ...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve protection
>>>>> at all costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than
>>>>> four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a s?security risk?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow four hours.
>>>> What a hardship.
>>>
>>> Moderate is a fool, AND an asshole. But I'm surprised at you Greg.
>>> If it was your child it would be ok?
>>
>> Detained for 4 hours...no problem. Take a nap sonny.
>> Handcuffed...different story. Have not seen any mainstream link substantiating this.
>>
>> Fake news???
>>
> The White House stated it. There were many sites that reported it.
> The only contrary thing that I saw was on Scopes. They said that a
> picture on one site (didn't say which one) was a fake..one taken some
> time before in the U.S. by a cop. Not of the boy at Dulles.
>
> -----------
>
> Well I would like to see the cite.
> You believe this happened?

You believe it didn't?

We're talking about federal agents who are willing to ignore federal
court orders.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 19:17:12 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:39:09 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:49:40 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:36:02 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The lying troll <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>> >> ...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve protection
>>> >> at all costs.
>>> >>
>>> >> 'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than
>>> >> four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a s?security risk?.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Wow four hours.
>>> > What a hardship.
>>>
>>> Moderate is a fool, AND an asshole. But I'm surprised at you Greg.
>>> If it was your child it would be ok?
>>
>>Detained for 4 hours...no problem. Take a nap sonny.
>>Handcuffed...different story. Have not seen any mainstream link substantiating this.
>>
>>Fake news???
>>
>The White House stated it. There were many sites that reported it.
>The only contrary thing that I saw was on Scopes. They said that a
>picture on one site (didn't say which one) was a fake..one taken some
>time before in the U.S. by a cop. Not of the boy at Dulles.
>
>-----------
>
>Well I would like to see the cite.

I don't remember the name, I just googled and checked several.
>You believe this happened?
I don't doubt it.

>
>There is one part about the travel ban that perplexes me. Why Iraq? We are partnered with them in the fight against ISIS. Why piss them off or show disrespect. The rest of the ban I have no trouble with.
>Do you believe it's a Muslim ban?
>

If they banned the Vatican only do you think it was anti catholic?

[Dene]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 9:13:10 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:

> If they banned the Vatican only do you think it was anti catholic?

Perhaps...but that is not what the travel ban did. There are 46 Muslim countries that are not banned. Furthermore, Christians or whoever from these particular countries are included in the ban. It's country of origin...not religion. The silly leftist hype is not supported by the facts.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

No, Greg. Christians are NOT included in the ban.

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>

> No, Greg. Christians are NOT included in the ban.
>

Cite.
--

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:34:55 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 9:13:10 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
>
>> If they banned the Vatican only do you think it was anti catholic?
>
>Perhaps...but that is not what the travel ban did. There are 46 Muslim countries that are not banned.

All that are banned are Muslim countries are though.

>Furthermore, Christians or whoever from these particular countries are included in the ban.

Nope, Trump has prioritized Christians.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-christians-234341

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/28/trump-christian-refugees-priority/97175800/

>It's country of origin...not religion.

Again. All that are banned are Muslim countries.

> The silly leftist hype is not supported by the facts.
>

Your beliefs about this aren't factual, and there are a ton of
conservatives that are not happy with the EO,

[David Laville]

I agree, Carbon. This video says it all;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHNrMlSv2sM

[Alan Baker]

Evasion!

[Dene]

He will make Christians a priority but for now, all are banned from the 7 countries. There is no provision for religion in the CURRENT order.

-Greg

[Dene]

I've not seen it either. If it happened, it would be all over every news outlet.

-Greg

[bobby...@onramp.net]

You'lll spin or duck anything that puts a discussion in a better light
for Trump. If you think that he hasn't implemented priority for
Christians you're wrong. Hell, that makes him look almost reasonable
and you should jump on it.

[Dene]

Absolute bullshit. There is no Christian exception in the executive order. All you have is Trumps's words of what he would like to do and unsubstantiated assumptions on your part and those who think like you.

-Greg

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:57:47 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:

>>He will make Christians a priority but for now, all are banned from the 7 countries. There is no provision
>for religion in the CURRENT order.
>>
>You'lll spin or duck anything that puts a discussion in a better light
>for Trump. If you think that he hasn't implemented priority for
>Christians you're wrong. Hell, that makes him look almost reasonable
>and you should jump on it.
>
>Absolute bullshit. There is no Christian exception in the executive order.
>All you have is Trumps's words of what he would like to do and unsubstantiated assumptions
> on your part and those who think like you.
>
>-Greg

No one has said that the executive order made such and exception, but
the guy who signed it has said that Christians would have priority. If
you want to go on record of saying that Trump is a liar, fine. But
doesn't have to say what he would LIKE to do. He just does it.

Spin away and look the fool if that's what you want.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:11:25 -0600, bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/27/trump-pledges-to-prioritize-christians-as-he-freezes-us-refugee-program/

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-will-prioritize-persecuted-christians-for-legal-status-report/

[Dene]

Yet there is no evidence that it's being implemented or that it's in the current executive order. What a president wants and what a president gets are often two different things.

-Greg

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:57:49 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> ...

> Absolute bullshit. There is no Christian exception in the executive order.

There was also no exception for current Green Card holders in the EO either,
but that has since been "clarified" ... has it not?

Care to point to where there's a written revised EO which documents this change?


-hh

[bobby...@onramp.net]

You aren't thinking. What he wants in an Executive Order goes into
it, and I've given you several sites that says there will be such
priorities given. There's no way you can spin it.

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

You aren't thinking. What he wants in an Executive Order goes into
it, and I've given you several sites that says there will be such
priorities given. There's no way you can spin it.

Here's my bottom line. I lock my doors at night even though I live in a very very safe community. Trump is locking Americas doors against bad hombres and I'm very happy about it. Important things are getting done. It may be clumsy. It may not be PC, but I don't give a damn. It needs to be done.

-Greg

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:53:38 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

> BobbyK wrote:
> You aren't thinking. What he wants in an Executive Order goes into
> it, and I've given you several sites that says there will be such
> priorities given. There's no way you can spin it.
>
> Here's my bottom line. I lock my doors at night even though I live
> in a very very safe community.

Our community's reasonable, but there have been problems, so its
probably less safe than your's. Over a decade ago, my next door
neighbor installed a new back door - full length glass and it didn't
even have a lock. They never had a single problem until they went
to sell the house two years ago: the realtor made them add a lock
before it went up for sale.

> Trump is locking Americas doors against bad hombres ...

Whereas the alternative view is that he's making a bunch of politically expedient
loud noises, but the actual objective safety benefits to American society are
effectively zero, particularly in comparison to what the same amount of fiscal
resources could have been spent on instead.

An apt analogy would be that you got a little paper cut on your pinky, and you
believe that a $25,000 medevac helicopter flight is the minimum care you need.

Because you don't think you'll ever have to pay for it, you're don't care that it is a
gross waste of resources.

Your inability to do a simple objective risk:benefit analysis isn't anything new; I can
recall talking about this sort of thing with a Town Administrator in NM who right
after 9/11 had their local citizens clamoring for their local law enforcement to set
up a 24/7 patrol of a local earthen dam because it was a "soft target"for terrorism
under a notional scenario that it destroyed, if breached, it might wipe out the town.

The cost of said patrol would run over $300K/yr just in direct labor costs, but with the
local population being protected being only 1400 residents (<700 households), this
meant that in order to be able to pay for it, every household's local property taxes
would go up on average by over 50%.

Needless to say, the patrol didn't happen.

Nor did the town ever get attacked.

In fact, the town ended up realizing that their budget was already short, so they
trimmed LEO overtime & abolished their Assistant Town Administrator position too.


-hh

[Moderate]

Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

These Sharia law loving posers are illogical at best, mentally
unbalanced in most discussions.

There is no point trying to reason with them. They are useful for
entertainment purposes only.
--

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:34:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> ...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve protection
> at all costs.
>
> 'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than
> four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a

> “security risk”.
>
> The boy, reportedly a US citizen with an Iranian mother, was one of more
> than 100 people detained following President Donald Trump’s immigration
> order.

Fuck him.

And you too, Shit Stain. You don't give a rats ass about that kid. Just another venue for your sick trolls.

Off yourself. Do the world a favor.

:-)

[bobby...@onramp.net]

The doors tomy house have been locked at night since I was a child. I
agree that there is something that needs to be done about immigration.
This was done helter-skelter with no thought. That's the Trump way.

[Dene]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:58:59 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:

> This was done helter-skelter with no thought. That's the Trump way.

'fraid so. Interesting times we live in.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

And Mussolini got the trains running on time.

There's more to this than simply getting things done, Greg.

If the precedent is set that the president can simply abrogate
agreements made in good faith and set aside constitutional protections,
why then can he not make the next step...

...and start doing these kinds of "things" to people who've been granted
US citizenship?

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2017-02-01 5:21 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>>> On 2017-02-01 4:39 PM, Dene wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Detained for 4 hours...no problem. Take a nap sonny.
>>>> Handcuffed...different story. Have not seen any mainstream link
>>>> substantiating this.
>>>>
>>>> Fake news???
>>>

>>> And if someone provides you a link, you'll find some new way to
>>> excuse it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Provide a cite.
>>
>
> If Greg asks...

Yes, we breathlessly await your left-wing opinion piece.

[michae...@gmail.com]

Perhaps you should put all your efforts into worrying more about your country rather than ours, Shit Stain.

Ooops....forgot.....it's just trolling for attention.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

BobbyK wrote:
>
> The doors to my house have been locked at night since I was a child.

> I agree that there is something that needs to be done about immigration.

Just what "needs to be done" regarding immigration? From a
principled stance, it isn't going to be curtailed, as the USA
is a nation of immigrants.

> This was done helter-skelter with no thought. That's the Trump way.

Very much so, although there's also been a determined piece
of bias in people choosing to complain that the current
policies are supposedly 'inadequate' while choosing to avoid
looking at them to determine what they even are.

For example, the vetting process for refugees - - who here
who has claimed that it isn't good enough (or has supported
that statement when made by others, etc) actually knows what
it currently is?

Furthermore, to what degree is the current process good enough?

Point here is that there's a slippery slope where we can always
point out pedantically that doing X more will result in Y more
benefit, but due to the law of diminishing returns, it stops
being worthwhile to spend another X increment because the Y
increment has become close enough to zero to not be worth it.

As it currently stands, candidate refugees receive multiple
hands-on (face to face) interviews regarding their trustworthiness
risk ... which IME is substantially more stringent than what
American holders of Federal security clearances receive. Even
for clearances issued post-Snowden.

YMMV, but when your refugee vetting process has already become
more detailed and more personally engaged than the background
security checks that you put your own military through ...

... its already pretty damn 'Extreme' in context.

And from a risk:benefit perspective, it means that you're
more likely to have a US Citizen go 'Lone Wolf' on you (or
whatever) than a contemporary fully screened & accepted refugee.

And the statistics of the past 1.5 decades prove this out.


-hh

[Dene]

A valid cite doesn't exist. Even so, I will not read it if it originates from the lying, leftist troll.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

How very brave of you...

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Well, there's definitely reports of people being handcuffed,
including the 5-year old:

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-five-year-old-boy-detained-dulles-international-airport-hours-sean-spicer-pose-security-a7554521.html>

As well as others:

<http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/28/stanford-university-student-detained-at-jfk-airport-for-five-hours-after-trumps-immigration-order/>

Nevertheless, there could have been mistakes in reporting,
although it is unlikely to have independent sources make
the same exact mistake on different stories.

Overall, the most disconcerting thing is to hear people be so
crass about traumatizing a child for hours on end, as they
lack the maturity to adequately comprehend why what's going on.

Case in point, developmentally, the ability to understand
abstract concepts doesn't really begin in earnest until one
becomes a teenager:

<https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/c/cognitive>


-hh