Apple CEO Tim Cook on Immigration Executive Order: 'It is Not a Policy We Support'

[johngordon]

Not sure if the first part was aimed at me.

Remind me how, in 2017, regular people with regular guns would defend themselves from a tyrannical government, and their military?

I wish I could post a link to Jim Jefferies routine on gun control in the US, but its on Netflix now, so has been taken down from YouYube.

 

[jlc1978]

Methinks that you don't understand qualifications inflation and embellishment.

I do. You embellished Lotts.

No one is going to bother diminishing a powerful person's resume. No upside whatsoever. Obama was elected President twice, so his stature as a lecturer is moot, but he was not a professor by the standard applied across the fruited plain. U of C has a vested interest in making him the Messiah.

So they are doing the same for Posner and Easterbrook?

Scalia, like Gorsuch, understands the environment of the time, and how that applies to intent.

Except Scalia would be loath, as a textualist, to use historical judicial research to frame an opinion. Scalia was not a judicial historian, and the history of the time has enough contradictions that the intent of the framers is lost to time. You realize that some parts of the US banned guns under certain conditions? That alone would imply it is not a blanket proscription of the ability of the State to enact laws limiting gun ownership. OTOH, some people owned private cannons. As a result, one can post to historical precedents for any interpretation, and generally do to support a position. That is the real danger with a historical judicial approach - you can use whatever history is in vogue at the time. I can see a political climate where terrorism invites stricter gun control laws, and historical judicial interpretation would let SCOTUS decide severe restrictions are OK. That is why Scalia was against such an approach, unless of course it was in support of a position he preferred.

 

[5684697]

42

 

[Larry-K]

What are you trying to say?

Libs always, alway refer to Bush and Perry as being stupid. Did you know that Bush was an F102 pilot and Perry a C130 driver? Both made it through USAF UPT. Have you?

I'm not rehashing the Dan Rather career ending attempt to paint Bush as a draft dodger.

Would you rather I refer to W as a "War Criminal"? Of course, you could argue he was smart enough to know better than to invade Iraq, but there's no evidence of that.

I was only talking pre-Presidential qualifications. He's in good company with Clinton, so don't pin it on Liberal leanings, it's just slackers who skate, while poor folks do the heavy-lifting.

Perry is stupid (the glasses don't help), couldn't even remember the Department he so vehemently wanted to eliminate, which he is now nominated to be secretary of (always give the nukes to the dumb guy).

 

[5684697]

42

 

[Larry-K]

War criminal for what? Action on intelligence that all of our allies corroborated and backed? Everyone forgets that our European allies signed off on the intelligence. Colin Powell did as well. Should he be imprisoned along with the executives throughout Europe? What's your answer for that? Bush hardly went it alone, and Obama blew it big time by stupidly announcing withdrawal, then being incompetently slow to see and counter what developed in the aftermath. Obama's arrogance that he knew better was his downfall in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Geez, you're peddling that tripe, that's really fake news. Bush ignored plenty of data to the contrary, as did every other NeoCon that wanted to impose their limited vision of democracy (i.e. get some oil) on the Middle-East, with little or no understanding of it (I hear that new vehicle code was a big hit). It was the equivalent of retaliating against Russia for Pearl Harbor.

And Bush was the one who couldn't negotiate a "status of forces" agreement with Iraq, why expect Obama to do any better? The regime didn't want us there to constrain their "cleansing" efforts, and those worked out so well.

You want to stay in the Middle-East forever? pick up a gun and put your behind on the line.

Don't care what Perry did for Texas. I don't live in Texas, but I have visited, and there's no reason to go back to that hell-hole, unless you have an urge to be executed.

As for your whipping girls, not my favorites, but I'd take them any day over the morally bankrupt Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and their ilk.

 

[5684697]

42

 

[Larry-K]

I did tote a gun, it was under my left foot, 6000 rpm. I loved the thing.

May I assume that you sat on the sidelines, where it is safe?

I really loved that gun, and it's nifty LCOS and predictive sight (with radar lock).

Well, you can't really expect much from people with emotional attachments to firearms.

You can assume whatever you like, but I was in a shooting war, and our hardware made your little toy look like just that.

I guess you prefer the Republican liars, nice choice, they're selling you out to Wall Street today, enjoy that next market crash, you'll be paying for it.

 

[5684697]

42

 

[Larry-K]

Wasn't my only "little toy".

Please, spare me the Wall Street is evil baloney.

The liberals spouting that are selling you a bill of goods. Trust me, they are all getting rich investing while quietly signaling what to place in their "blind trusts" based on what is coming down the legislative agenda.

It's capitalism, requires risk, and isn't for sissies.

Get into the game, or end up dependent upon the whim of government for your retirement.

Are you really an anti-gun soldier? Slimey civilians shouldn't have weapons?

That would certainly explain your trying to compensate.

Yeah, there was no one to blame for that recession, I guess god willed it, or something like that, from your perspective. All those sweethearts on Wall Street were innocent bystanders, and that's why real taxpayers had to bail them out. If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty sure crooks from both parties lined their pockets at taxpayer expense, but since nobody's going to jail for anything (Well, lookee there, some people involved are becoming cabinet members, what could go wrong?), I'll never know for sure.

When you take a break from hate-mongering (you do that once in a while, I'm guessing) you might examine what really happened, and be more than a little surprised to find your retirement isn't that safe, but I'm sure you probably have some colorful, but grossly incorrect narrative that gets you through the day. I frequently find people with the least understanding of what goes on in Capitalism (those who aren't actively stealing), seem to be the biggest proponents of it, same thing for religion a lot of the time. Good idea to always question your faith.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm probably a better shot than you are (it doesn't take me 6000 rounds to hit something) and I was loading my own ammunition before middle school.

"Slimey Civilians"? You'd better read that second Amendment again (for the first time, maybe?). You work for a civilian (Okay, he is pretty slimey), even if He's just an Orange Guy suffering from Propecia induced brain-fog.

Oh, and even though you're giving GIs a bad name, thank you for your service.

P.S. How do you "tote" a gun under your left foot? Do you have some physical deformity the VA won't help you with?

 

[5684697]

Don't make grossly inaccurate assumptions about me, followed by trite, vacuous insults, and then thank me for my service. Your platitudes and attempt at absolution are rejected.

 

[0098386]

What a mess America is and a lot of Americans are. The international view of the US was improving so much, even under Bush there was a gradual improvement. What a mess.

Remember that "drain the swamp" tag line? I just find it incredibly sad people are falling for their boundary-testing, and what their testing is in aid of.

 

[Snoopy4]

What a mess America is and a lot of Americans are. The international view of the US was improving so much, even under Bush there was a gradual improvement. What a mess.

Remember that "drain the swamp" tag line? I just find it incredibly sad people are falling for their boundary-testing, and what their testing is in aid of.

Pfft. People said the same crap after Reagan was elected. We just didn't have the internet. Hell, some kid came to school calling him a fascist becuase his commie mommy said he was.

 

[5684697]

42

 

[0098386]

The truth is the burden would end up on
Liberals who have bought this lie are helpless and as a result, miserable.

Huh. I used to be right wing, well, not too far right. I believed in capitalism and the meritocracy all throughout my teens and twenties. I made it work for myself - I started with nothing (parents paid for university and gave me a house) of my own. I was unemployed for a while then started my company. It was and remains successful.

It's hard to pin down the exact moment I started moving left. I believe it was the combination of the following;
- seeing disabled people barely able to survive
- seeing designated family members in both my partners and my own family who run around all day doing chores for people and providing emotional support where needed (this made me believe a universal income is a good idea)
- seeing people with mental illnesses that want to succeed unable to reach their potential.
- seeing property prices rise beyond affordability (the only friends I know able to get a mortgage are two NHS radiographer earning a combined £60k a year)
- the very existence, and rise in demand, of food banks means our current civilisation and society has failed
- and in America of course, the cost of healthcare.
- a gigantic dislike of immigrant and refugee hate.

All of my IRL right wing friends have gradually drifted left too. A lot of them were turned off by far right more than anything else. I believe in left and right, but the far right is just horrible. Simple as that. It drifts too close to genocide for my liking. The rise of the far right caused me to look at my own beliefs and I just wanted to get as far away from that as possible. And after doing so the right just looks cold and uncaring.

I pay a lot of tax. I'm happy to do so. My current desire is for corporations to pay their fair share and for more social programs.

I saw this today too. Whilst not entirely related to my post I thought I'd share it anyways

 

[jlc1978]

It is amazing to see how the left has trained naieve young people to hate capitalism and investing, when it is the one way most of them have of becoming financially independent.

There are many Trump voters who dislike Wall Street and believed him when he said “I know Wall Street. I know the people on Wall Street. ... I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.” They believed him when he promised to get tough and drain the swamp. Of course, his actions, such as rolling back Dodd - Frank, show he is going to turn them loose again. I'll give him credit for the "I know the people on Wall Street" part, he clearly does as he is bringing them in to oversee Wall Street. That's great for me as an investor, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out for main street. The truth about politics is both sides of the aisle make promises to get elected and then do something else. Trump has sold a lot a voters a bill of goods and it will be interesting to see if he can deliver. When the jobs keep going away there is going to be a lot of angry voters in 4 years.

Conservatives love their government handouts just as much, even if they complain about them. I'd love to see a Republican President explain to the residents of New Mexico, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama and Montana, for example, that to get the Federal government out of their lives they are going to cut Federal aid so they only get back tax revenue dollar for dollar to stop making other states fund their benefits. My guess is when their checks get smaller they would want the Federal government to get back in their lives.

The problem with labels is they ascribe a broad set of behaviors and are a convenient rhetorical term to use to avoid a rational discussion; a tack used on both sides of the argument. There are liberals who own guns, are fiscally conservative and even (gasp) serve in the military; just as there are conservatives who are socially liberal and favor rational gun control.

Perry a C130 driver

It is a bit appropriate that he was a trash hauler...

 

[5684697]

42

 

[s2mikey]

Huh. I used to be right wing, well, not too far right. I believed in capitalism and the meritocracy all throughout my teens and twenties. I made it work for myself - I started with nothing (parents paid for university and gave me a house) of my own. I was unemployed for a while then started my company. It was and remains successful.

It's hard to pin down the exact moment I started moving left. I believe it was the combination of the following;
- seeing disabled people barely able to survive
- seeing designated family members in both my partners and my own family who run around all day doing chores for people and providing emotional support where needed (this made me believe a universal income is a good idea)
- seeing people with mental illnesses that want to succeed unable to reach their potential.
- seeing property prices rise beyond affordability (the only friends I know able to get a mortgage are two NHS radiographer earning a combined £60k a year)
- the very existence, and rise in demand, of food banks means our current civilisation and society has failed
- and in America of course, the cost of healthcare.
- a gigantic dislike of immigrant and refugee hate.

All of my IRL right wing friends have gradually drifted left too. A lot of them were turned off by far right more than anything else. I believe in left and right, but the far right is just horrible. Simple as that. It drifts too close to genocide for my liking. The rise of the far right caused me to look at my own beliefs and I just wanted to get as far away from that as possible. And after doing so the right just looks cold and uncaring.

I pay a lot of tax. I'm happy to do so. My current desire is for corporations to pay their fair share and for more social programs.

I saw this today too. Whilst not entirely related to my post I thought I'd share it anyways
View attachment 686968

I can respect your views and change of heart. I lean right for sure but I am NOT hook, line and sinker for the right by any means. Taxes are a tough issue. I don't think anyone minds paying some taxes to help with the greater good and overall societal functioning. But, much more than that starts to get iffy. I hate high taxes here in NYS due to bloated Govt employee unions and their never ending benefits. Their pensions are draining us dry but they think it's all fine. There are way too many people who milk the system and fabricate issues which takes money away from those who actually need it. Like TRULY disabled people. Until there are more checks and balances in place to weed out the fraud and moochers..... I have to remain anti tax. The public school system is also a giant money suck that provides horrible results and they always want more, more, more money. Drives me insane. That's why we won't be here much longer. Time to move to a more tax advantageous state.

 

[5684697]

42

 

[jlc1978]

That said, I get a kick out of all of left requiring that statues and logos be removed because they are offensive. We have to get rid of statues of Columbus, we can't call a football team The Redskins, we need safe spaces to shield us from such horrific images. Yet the government dictates that Christians must be forced to photograph gay weddings that are offensive to their religion. I bet no Muslim photographer will be forced to shoot a gay wedding, because the gay couple might actually respect Islamic views on gays, or understand how offensive that is to some faiths.

While I agree that we've gone a bit far in the attempt to shield people from anything that might give offense, there are valid reasons to require companies that offer products or services to the public do so on a non-discriminatory basis. Some Christians are quick to take offense when they feel slighted, yet don't seem to find it equally abhorrent when the shoe is on the other foot. In fairness, there also also those who speak out. There are some gun owners who get upset because a store won't let them bring a gun into their store, as if the owner's rights were trumped by theirs. Oddly enough, many gun stores won't let you carry in their store. Their are some atheists who are upset you can get a car tag with "In God We Trust" on it. There are people of all stripes who are quick to get offended and in many cases just need to get a thicker skin. There is, however, in some strains of Christianity a persecution complex that seems to view everything as an attack on their religion and thus proof of the correctness of their beliefs because Christ was persecuted for his; and thus they go looking for persecution when none exists.

there needs to be a way to fire bad government employees

I know a lot of government employees who would agree with you, the challenge is preventing it from simply becoming a way to get rid of those you don't agree with or weren't your supporters; that would return the government sector to the old patronage system the Civil Service was designed to replace.[

 

[5684697]

42

 

[0098386]

Americas drug testing policy is so bizarre to me as a European. I don't take drugs, I don't even drink alcohol or smoke tobacco, but I just don't get why testing is such a big thing. If someone gets some enjoyment from cannabis or (like Trump is rumoured to) cocaine in their free time then there's no problem. If one is affected by it and their work suffers then fire them.

However I find it interesting that it's the low paid jobs that seem to test for drugs. Why isn't there a federal program to test those in power too? I mean, if drugs are affecting low wage workers then surely it can also negatively affect bankers, lawyers, the president etc. Alcohol is a killer and very addictive - test for that too. If you drink alcohol then what's stopping you from becoming an alcoholic? Sack the drinkers.

Alternatively abandon the idea of drug testing.

And regarding welfare cheats. Honestly I don't mind them, even with all the tax I'm paying. The way I see it there are people who really need welfare but barely make the government-set requirements. If rules are tightened then they'll lose their money. All to teach a few (UK figures have benefit cheats at somelike thing 0.15%) people a lesson. I'd rather those that need it got it.

I'd like to see those severely disabled get 24/7 carers.
I'd like to see, I forget the term, but a guaranteed minimum income,
or at the very least designated family members that get a full welfare-provided wage for 'family caring'.
I'd like to see property prices reduced.
Public schools in the UK are fine. Merit-based grammar schools would be nice.
University education cost to be greatly reduced or free, as it once was.
Less bloated government, less allowances, streamline parliament and its cost.
More money to the NHS.
Reduce rail costs.
Corporation tax sorted.

 

[jlc1978]

The next mind blowing move that Trump makes has been rumored to be requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. You haven't seen nothing yet in terms of protests. Wait until that hits.

That will be interesting, especially considering some of the fast growing opiate use is in areas where he garnered a lot of support.While I am not equating opiate use with Trump voter, states such as KY, WV and TN all went 60+% and have seen a statistically significant increase in opiate use as well as about 20% of the population on food stamps. It is not unreasonable to assume many of those affected were also Trump voters. Will he be willing to hit them in the wallet and take the heat?

 

[johngordon]

Next time you are in London, sashay over to the Imperial War Museum and visit the top floor. It is the Holocaust display. I spent four hours up there a couple of months ago. That's all you need to know.

There are very few service members who would take part in combat against the citizenry, the remaining will be easily dispatched by arms that are available to be "born" by a man. Every single LEO I know, and I know a ton for a number of reasons, believes strongly in the individual right to defend yourself with a firearm. Their politically appointed chiefs may not, but they certainly do.

Speaks volumes.

I'm not sure its all I need to know at all.

On the one hand you appear to be arguing that had regular people had guns in Europe in the 30s and 40s they would have been better able to resist the Holocaust.

And on the other argue that "very few service members would take part in combat against the citizenry".

Clearly that wasn't the case in Europe during WW2.

Also, if you are arguing that "very few service members would take part in combat against the citizenry", then doesn't that lessen the need for arms?

On a smaller scale, if someone is burgled at home, is the argument that they would easily be able to defend themselves if they had a gun?

Even though, as responsible gun owners, any guns would be locked somewhere safe?

 

[5684697]

42