[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-29, 19:02, said:

I'd use the words "sociopathic idiot", however, insane does save on ink...

What you are neglecting to consider is that that there is risk with everything that we do. I have a pet cat... He might kill me one of these nights. And yet I let the critter into my house because the risk is very very small.

Personally, I feel a lot safer in the company of a Syrian refugee than I would around a Trump voter.

You are welcome to take on whatever risks you desire. But don't force your risky behavior on me, please. And if the risk is negligible then surely you would be willing to indemnify the rest of the public, right?

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-29, 18:43, said:

Well, by your definition I must be insane. Green card holders from the countries designated as supplying terrorists/terrorism represent an increased opportunity for terrorists to legally enter the US.

Maybe you should get a clue before you open your mouth. Green card holders are people living in the US, with a permanent permission to continue living there. There is no gain at all from "You will not be allowed to re-enter the US if you go on a trip abroad".

Indeed, this is so absurd that even the Bannon White House has now reversed that policy (and there is an official statement from the DHS secretary to that effect).

How do you feel about defending a policy that was too cruel, bigoted and point-less even for the Bannon White House?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-29, 19:07, said:

You are welcome to take on whatever risks you desire. But don't force your risky behavior on me, please. And if the risk is negligible then surely you would be willing to indemnify the rest of the public, right?

Stop pretending that you approach is without risks of its own
There is a reason that the US has steered away from the whole "We're at war with Islam" until now...

As for your suggestion about indemnification:

The world doesn't work this way
I know this. You should know this.

What was the point of making such a facetious comment?

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-January-29, 19:44, said:

Maybe you should get a clue before you open your mouth. Green card holders are people living in the US, with a permanent permission to continue living there. There is no gain at all from "You will not be allowed to re-enter the US if you go on a trip abroad".

Indeed, this is so absurd that even the Bannon White House has now reversed that policy (and there is an official statement from the DHS secretary to that effect).

How do you feel about defending a policy that was too cruel, bigoted and point-less even for the Bannon White House?

Vituperative language and bad manners seems to be a badge of honor with you. Would you like to have a discussion or do you want to continue to rant?

Immigration, green cards, and visas are not a right of people from other countries, they are a privilege extended by the US Government. And can be withdrawn or amended at any time. And since a couple of the terrorist incidents in the US were committed by children of legal immigrants, one would think that looking more deeply into their cultural motivations would be warranted before extending citizenship. We have enough social problems already; I don't see the benefit to inviting more.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-29, 20:11, said:

Stop pretending that you approach is without risks of its own
There is a reason that the US has steered away from the whole "We're at war with Islam" until now...

As for your suggestion about indemnification:

The world doesn't work this way
I know this. You should know this.

What was the point of making such a facetious comment?

I agree, life is inherently risky. But you and I both get the opportunity to choose which risks we take and which we mitigate. But I have no right to choose for you and vice versa.

I am not at war with Islam. But neither am I foolish enough to ignore their cultural/religious imperatives or their history. So I am not motivated to invite them into my society. But I wish them well in theirs.

The point of the indemnify comment is to point out that the risk is there and to bring to the surface that you would like me to share in that risk. But I do not want to share in that risk if I do not have to. So if you insist, then indemnify me. Then we are both happy.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-29, 20:11, said:

As for your suggestion about indemnification:

The world doesn't work this way
I know this. You should know this.

And by the way, the world does work that way. Car/public liability insurance, indemnity insurance, performance bonds, financial options, etc. All are forms of one party insuring/indemnifying another party.

[PassedOut]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-29, 20:29, said:

I am not at war with Islam. But neither am I foolish enough to ignore their cultural/religious imperatives or their history. So I am not motivated to invite them into my society. But I wish them well in theirs.

Regarding national security, do you consider it a wise move to remove the chairman of the Joint Chiefs from a permanent position on the National Security Council and to add Steve Bannon? I don't.

[ldrews]

 PassedOut, on 2017-January-29, 21:11, said:

Regarding national security, do you consider it a wise move to remove the chairman of the Joint Chiefs from a permanent position on the National Security Council and to add Steve Bannon? I don't.

I don't know. I wonder what is the motivation for removing the Joint Chiefs? Adding Steve Bannon may be just a delegation of responsibility. My take is Trump is not a detail person and delegates as much as possible. But removing the military suggests a hidden agenda.

[USViking]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-29, 18:29, said:

Constitutional crisis, hmmph! The government may have overstepped its boundaries (the courts will soon tell us), but apparently only with respect to individuals in transit. And even then we have to wait for the courts to tell us. But a constitutional crisis? Be serious!

A constitutional crisis exists when the government defies a court order, as our border and customs security agencies have.

What worries me is that Trump and his corps of baboons will try to invoke ex part Merryman as a precedent for saying they can do anything they damn please. Merryman was a 1861 case where Lincoln is generally considered to have defied an order from Chief Justice Roger Taney forbidding emergency suspention of habeas corpus.

Now, Trump is not facing anything like the crisis Lincoln faced, but Trump and his baboons are the kind of people who might think nothing of provoking the kind of crisis Lincoln faced.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-29, 20:29, said:

The point of the indemnify comment is to point out that the risk is there and to bring to the surface that you would like me to share in that risk. But I do not want to share in that risk if I do not have to. So if you insist, then indemnify me. Then we are both happy.

You don't share any "risk" (as if there was any meaningful risk). You ran off to Mexico to save a few bucks...

Even if we were part of the same risk pool, we're not part of the same society.
As far as I am concerned, when you ran off to dodge taxes, you exited the social contract.
You don't get to make claims about what America needs to do for you...

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-29, 20:44, said:

And by the way, the world does work that way. Car/public liability insurance, indemnity insurance, performance bonds, financial options, etc. All are forms of one party insuring/indemnifying another party.

I'm only aware of a handful of examples where a government has provided indemnification in advance for policy decisions.

Arguably "virus court" works in this manner.

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-29, 20:24, said:

Vituperative language and bad manners seems to be a badge of honor with you. Would you like to have a discussion or do you want to continue to rant?

Immigration, green cards, and visas are not a right of people from other countries, they are a privilege extended by the US Government. And can be withdrawn or amended at any time. And since a couple of the terrorist incidents in the US were committed by children of legal immigrants, one would think that looking more deeply into their cultural motivations would be warranted before extending citizenship. We have enough social problems already; I don't see the benefit to inviting more.

cherdano: "I see no point in throwing apples at traffic lights."

ldrews: "I really like mandarines."

It is you who doesn't want a discussion - by constantly making stuff up, by "replying" to my posts and arguing against something I didn't said, etc.

Here is a simple question: the EO said that green card holders would not be permitted to re-enter the US except in a case-by-case basis. (Now DHS says this "case-by-case" exception will be applied basically to everyone.) Do you think that was a good idea?

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-30, 04:24, said:

You don't share any "risk" (as if there was any meaningful risk). You ran off to Mexico to save a few bucks...

Even if we were part of the same risk pool, we're not part of the same society.
As far as I am concerned, when you ran off to dodge taxes, you exited the social contract.
You don't get to make claims about what America needs to do for you...

Ah, I see. No real arguments, just adhomiben attacts. Classy.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-30, 04:44, said:

I'm only aware of a handful of examples where a government has provided indemnification in advance for policy decisions.

Arguably "virus court" works in this manner.

Are familiar with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures your bank accounts?

Transferring risk for a fee is a fundamental part of our economic system, called "insurance". Perhaps you have heard of it?

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-January-30, 05:40, said:

Here is a simple question: the EO said that green card holders would not be permitted to re-enter the US except in a case-by-case basis. (Now DHS says this "case-by-case" exception will be applied basically to everyone.) Do you think that was a good idea?

For the countries on the list prepared by the Obama administration, yes I think it is a good idea to re-vet those green card holders. They are not being "banned", just being asked to come in for a re-qualifying interview. Given that Quebec just experienced another "terrorist" attack from individuals shouting "Allah Akhbar!", don't you think so too?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 07:51, said:

Are familiar with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures your bank accounts?

Transferring risk for a fee is a fundamental part of our economic system, called "insurance". Perhaps you have heard of it?

Once again, you are listing a set of requirements that the government has established to govern relationships between citizens (or in this case banks and citizens).

You are demanding that the government indemnify its citizens (in advance) for its own policies.

For all intents an purposes, the US government is self insuring.
This sort of thing doesn't happen

[andrei]

 cherdano, on 2017-January-29, 17:46, said:

You are misunderstanding the purpose of the EO. The purpose isn't to address terrorism. The purpose is to make life miserable for as many Muslims in the US as the White House legally can (or believes it cans) - just so it can proudly report that it made life miserable for Muslims.
Terrorism is a problem. We blame Muslims for it. Ergo we make their life miserable.

Trump administration prove their ineptitude yet again.
They are trying to make Muslims life miserable, yet the travel ban applies to only 12% of the world's total Muslim population.

[Winstonm]

Who didn't see this coming? (except the idiots occupying the WH)

WaPo:

Quote

Jihadist groups hail Trump’s travel ban as a victory
In social-media postings, Islamic State supporters see the order as validation for their claim that the U.S. is at war with Islam.
By Joby Warrick

Trump has handed Isis a recruitment tool they could only dream about - and at the same time shown the U.S. to be cowering from Isis. Nice, job, dumbass.

[cherdano]

 andrei, on 2017-January-30, 08:32, said:

Trump administration prove their ineptitude yet again.
They are trying to make Muslims life miserable, yet the travel ban applies to only 12% of the world's total Muslim population.

Well, it's a start.

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 07:56, said:

For the countries on the list prepared by the Obama administration, yes I think it is a good idea to re-vet those green card holders. They are not being "banned", just being asked to come in for a re-qualifying interview. Given that Quebec just experienced another "terrorist" attack from individuals shouting "Allah Akhbar!", don't you think so too?

I was asking about the original policy, not the modified one in place now. The original one said they would not be let back in, unless DHS made an exception.

But to answer your question, no I don't think so. Noone in law enforcement working on terrorism asked for this, and there are very good reasonservice for that. Interviewing someone for hours who is not suspected of anything is a waste of resources. What are you gonna ask? Are you planning any terrorist attacks? How is your aunt? When did you stop beating your wife?