Azalin

If I was a cop that pulled one of these idiots over, I'd taser my initials into these idiots' flesh. And I'd laugh as I did it.

okay, but can I have tomatoes?

Well, that's where I disagree with them, then.

Hell yeah, as far as I'm concerned you can put them in cornbread, too.

You're no closer to understanding it because you're a rational human being who makes an effort to think instead of having emotional reactions to what other people do, say, or the manner in which they choose to present themselves.

I fail to see how holding six specific countries to the same standard we do with every other country regarding background checks for visas is in any way a violation of anyone's rights or our own domestic statutes. If a country does not have a system in place for keeping arrest records or other information pertinent to obtaining a visa, then how can one logically make the claim that it's not right to group applicants by country?

Okay, I will ask again: What specifically would you have had the administration do? It's easy to sit here and say 'liberals will do this, conservatives will do that, etc, etc' but what do you believe would be the best way to safeguard against terrorists from entering the country? I know. I'm using the word because that's what critics are calling it.

What specifically would you have had the administration do? After their first attempt at the EO, it was modified from 7 countries affected down to 6, none of which have the means to properly conduct thorough enough background checks. Detractors still called it a "Muslim ban", conveniently ignoring (and most certainly not reporting) the fact that 44 majority-Muslim nations were not included in the "ban". It ain't much of a ban if you're still granting visas to the majority of Muslim nations.

Then it should be an easy fix. Constitutional protections do not extend to foreign nationals seeking visas.

The proposed travel restrictions weren't about how dangerous the country may or may not be, it was about a country's ability to provide thorough background checks on travelers coming to the US. Then of course critics went on an all-out campaign to say it was all inspired by anti-Muslim sentiment, because we're just not able to have a realistic dialogue about anything anymore.

It was on television, and television never, ever lies.

Well, they did also give the world Rice-a-Roni.

A pizza waitress makes too much money to get a subsidy? Seriously?

Could you please specify the treasonous activity for those of us who may not be so enlightened?

I'm just imagining how long it would take the meatheads and gators of the world to hammer one through a two-by-four.

So, are you saying that you believe all those are conspiracies, conspiracy theories, nonsense, or were you just not paying a damned bit of attention again?

Yep. Let's see if he can make a relevant point instead of shoveling another pile of bullsh@t. He now has an opportunity to debate my calling him out. We'll see if he takes it.

The history of the middle east, whether ancient or not, is no justification for murdering innocent people at a concert or anywhere else. This is not an issue to be clouded or muddled by politics. There are indeed times where a little introspection is a good thing. This is not one of them.

I completely agree with you. I was just being a wise-ass.

They knew that I preferred Connery? Well said - my sentiments exactly. I actually enjoy the new movies a lot - not necessarily because of Daniel Craig, but because the movies aren't rife with ridiculous gadgets, and they're pretty brutal when compared with all the others.

Judging by my decades living in the south as a WNY transplant, I suspect you're right about that.

It is when compared with gunning them all down, I suppose.

Give'em time. That'll go away soon enough.