Neo

Drunkard, pA, Matt -- I read your posts. Am I missing something? Does someone disagree? You can find morality and ethics many places. I believe you can find them looking in a mirror.

You are an assumption of risk guy, too. Is examining the risk before deciding reasonable or bigotry? I'll push back against enlightened philosophers rejecting tyranny being equated to unenlightened and tyrannical fanatics intending to kill innocents (their words, not mine). You're one of the posters who's been called names. I've had the same "I told you so" thought. I'll bet it brings neither of us joy.

We've, you know me well. It is the price we pay. I would gladly board planes without a TSA that searches 9 year old girls (happened to me) and 83 year olds in wheelchairs (happened in front of me). Both women wept. I don't want my data collected, either. Me to TSA: "She's nine". TSA to me: "We have to be random". Me: "Make sense to you?" TSA: "No". I would, by the way, consider paying the price of larger government if and when it makes sense. Freedom of choice, efficacy and assumption of risk. You know me well, too. We've was more efficient!Back after my shave, where I weighed the risk of running a razor over my face and neck against my desire for smooth skin .... My price we pay doctrine: We don't give up trying to remove risks. We recognize they're there while retaining liberties. Solutions where reasonable forfeits of Liberty arise can make sense. We balance. I surrender a liberty very grudgingly. There are costs associated with surrendering, too. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin. Last edit - ascribing sinister motives, impinging character, and calling names is shameful anywhere in the debate. Shout downs and language orthodoxy are not replacements for a well constructed argument and we must all retain the intellectual honesty and courage to address that.

I may or may not be for a refugee program. We'll see. I am against calling people bigots for being prudent in its examination. That's as bad as your bigots hiding behind feigned prudence. It's also the direction the name calling comes from. It's more common, I believe, and part of an anti speech and thought trend in discourse. Don't like an idea? Call the speaker a bigot, a racist, a victim shamer! "First, demonized the person speaking the idea. The idea, itself, will not have to be addressed." Paraphrase - guess who's hero? Clapper, Homeland Security and other intelligence agencies don't matter to me, per se, in making what I thought was my post's main point regarding labels and the left. I'll not throw the cards down and say going all uber-Trump and banning all crossings makes sense. I will say it's shameful to call someone a bigot for suggesting caution. I know 14 people in California who'd agree with me. Wait, I don't anymore. Second attempt re: my reply to you, above. I watched a news story. It quoted Clapper and the Chair of the HSC. Clapper warned and other intelligence agencies reported. I mixed up Clapper and the other agencies with my fingertips. I corrected my fingertips with a post edit in about two minutes. You'll not find Clapper, at least through today, comfirming. I'll bet you do soon. You will find the Chair of Homeland Security reporting intelligence agencies as saying the attempts are underway.

I think I corrected my post in minutes. Clapper warned, and intelligence officials subsequently reported to the Homeland Security Committee Chair, that extremists "have targeted the refugee program to enter the US". Did I get that right? My news report listed both sources. I confused the "warn" and "have targeted". I didn't twist. Both occurred. My apologies to Clapper for the distinction with little difference. My thanks to Homeland Security for verifying. Would you have been disappointed with "as Clapper warned, intelligence officials subsequently confirmed that extremists have targeted"? I'll call that a posting error if you let me, immediately corrected by me while making the same point. The real point, though, was that some of us here cautioned that concerns around the obvious issue sounded like bigotry. Sounds like common sense to me. What say you? I concede temporarily confusing security agencies. I understand twisting. This needs none. For me, people. Goods serve them.

Do the other things have some status in the US? Are they goods or people? Are you thinking cigarettes?

Yes, it's that easy for the known. I think the unknown sometimes accompany the known, or the may travel with other unknown. Of course, some known and unknown may travel alone. In any event, I was more concerned with the bigotry suggested by someone saying there are dangers involved with taking in Syrian refugees.

Google DNI Refugee .... Many sources, not simply the "right and left". Washington Post comes up first. “As they descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background?” said Clapper. “We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees. That is a huge concern of ours.” Sept 9 That's Clapper. The "known" came from Homeland Security. The bigotry is spreading.

Apparently, the Director of National Intelligence informed our President that known terrorists are posing as Syrian refugees and trying to enter the United States. The refugees are not widows and orphans, as the President told us. President Obama did not know Clapper was a fear mongering racist trying to restrict the movement of brown people when he nominated him.

Would be my assumption, yes.

...it must've been while you were kiss-ing me. I just got home from seeing The Martian in 3D. OT, I know ... but see it in 3D. Hurry, it's leaving theaters. Third period for me.

Go Gators!

I see .... Carpenter lining up for a 53 yard attempt ... 3 seconds left on the clock ...

Twitter's the biggest web corner I've not ventured into. BN's Graham just told a tweeter to "go hump your fist". Honest to goodness. Just cracks me up!

Ha! Thanks to me? You and other GDT regulars do so much heavy lifting ... I'm thankful for you.

Yes! That's the one I was thinking of first! Post forget!

^ pA: I haven't seen his/her direct and full quote. ABC reported "suspicious" in quotation marks, though. We're going to learn a lot about what people consider suspicious. Not good news. I like your reach out to Hoss. "What would Hoss do?"

Buffalo v Edmonton. Rebuilder v Rebuilder. Reinhart v Draisaitl. (Grateful). Eichel v McDavid - postponed. Ristolainen v Nurse. Bylsma v McLellan. So many, tonight ..

...... I'm on a roll .... Did anyone see the news teams going through the shooters' home? 24 hour news cycle weirdness. "Here's the baby's toys ... some receipts ... and family photos". Did the FBI, local police, and several editors all take a vacation day at the same time? Another thought - preparedness, policy and soft targets .... Neighbor in San Bernadino: "I saw some suspicious behavior, but felt bad about profiling and reporting ..." I'm interested in this. Willing to bet: Our President will say, again tonight, what he's said already. "If you see something odd, report it". George Zimmerman, as despicable as he may be on Twitter, believed he saw something odd. We can agree he didn't. We have to acknowledge he believed he did. We'll have posting fodder for years. April 22, 2017 - "Hello, 911? There are three people with beards and prayer smocks who look nervous and are sweating at the mall".

Musing for the day, inspired by pA and Whiskey and the no-fly list. When terror moves to soft targets, what other "no-this" lists do we have? No county-employee lists? No-holiday party in the conference room lists? Game changer time. The debate in my head has always been how do you eliminate the risk vs. how do you restrict the behavior of a free people in light of the risk. I'm an eliminate guy, not a surrender guy. Guess which candidates resonate with me, warts notwithstanding? By the way, eliminate risk doesn't mean "wipe off the face of the earth". Eliminate refers to the risk. In some sense, this is left vs right. I'm not proving anything, here. Take this thought, mix in the language around race and religion which CONFUSES, and you get good people pointing fingers at one another. My understanding is at 2 on a 1-10 scale. I'm working on it.

Reluctant Republican. It fits me better than the alternative. I'd be an independent (like most?) except that participating in primaries is important to me. I am not at all reluctant about using the list for this effective method to keep weapons out of the hands people you've identified as risky. Now, this is subtle, not contradictory - the thought of a "list" makes me queasy. Nixon had enemies. McCarthy had commies. Historical interest: McCarthyism, Nixon and the House Unamerican Activities Committee. Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss. People were ruined. Ruined ...

I dont like government lists. The no fly list exists. I support effective gun control. The no fly list exists. Ban gun sales to those on the no fly list. I'm a Republican (reluctantly).

I get confused easily. I forgot the earth isn't flat. See my 2nd amendment, climate change and raptor Jesus posts. I am a round earth denier. Even I crack me up!

I completely blew it ... confusing last year / Toronto with this year.

Is anyone going to this year's world juniors?