doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Down to one.

Lucky you King. The student loan debt sits at well north of 1.4 trillion and growing. Maybe our gal will take a page out comedy central and start up the aca, affordable college act. I wonder if 'free' state college is a signal to college ceo's to raise their tuitions? How're the new public service announcements going to sound, if you like your college degree, you can keep you college degree, why not it's just a piece of paper.

The FBI Director has been acting as if he had no intention of really investigating Mrs Clinton. As has been mentioned the FBI handed out immunity from prosecution like candy to a roomful of kids. There never was any intent to indict anyone, the FBI gave everyone but Mrs Clinton immunity. No grand jury was ever empaneled. Director Comey has several times said that Mrs Clinton showed no "obvious intent" to violate the statute concerning lawful handling of classified material. "Obvious intent" or "intent" are not mentioned in the law, only the fact that classified material has been mishandled. Comey is making it up as goes along.
There are numerous press articles pointing out the entire process has been deliberately mishandled.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comeys-clinton-immunity-1475017121
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...urley/91092182/ This article by George Washington U Law Professor Jonathan Turley is very convincing. He is a very well known and widely respected liberal law professor.

The fix was in, all the way from the top IMHO.

Best!

What's new? The inquiry said it was mishandled, Clinton told a world audience the other night it was mishandled and admitted blame.

Your opinion the FBI Director "has been acting as if he had no intention of really investigating Mrs Clinton" is interesting but still an opinion.

"There never was any intent to indict anyone" imputes a motive and could be accurate if not for the words any and anyone---but still an opinion.

Well Craig . . . not all of Christianity is hierarchical either (like the Catholic Church and many other denominations are). There are exceptions, as Wonko pointed out. You familiar with the crazy Phelpsies that demonstrate at military funerals? Should we be "profiling" them? Branch Davidians? Given terrorism laws, if an imam is actively advocating terrorism, he'd likely be in trouble.

Re "profiling" in general: Law enforcement can't do it. You can "stop and frisk", but if you stop and frisk a very high percentage of one ethnic group, you're going to be in trouble. Intelligence, however, CAN profile. If a case of Chinese espionage is suspected, counterintelligence would be looking very hard at Chinese Americans. Why? They're the people Chinese intelligence targets. If it's Russians we're worried about, CI would be looking at sudden, unexplained wealth. They buy their traitors. If you know how the enemy operates, that's how you target. But that's intel, not law enforcement. And intel isn't concerned with making legal cases. If it comes to that point, intel will turn over their information to LE, and they take it from there. Somewhat complex, but that's the difference between the two. Prior to 9/11, the FBI's counterterrorism agents couldn't even exchange information with their criminal agents. That's changed since, but they still have to be careful if they want a successful prosecution.

Re a much later comment about college debt: Old guys like King (if he'd gone to college) and me (and I did--BA and MA) didn't have a huge concern. I graduated debt free, with no scholarships. But then my first semester (spring 1964), tuition was only $126. I could pay that with the money I made pumping gas, doing work-study on campus, and serving in the National Guard.

Leave it to the brilliant ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst Larry Clown to use the Branch Davidians as an example of extremist Christians to compare to extremist Muslims.

Should Branch Davidians or other extreme Christian sects be profiled craigd???

Well, I seem to recall that Bill Clinton's Attorney General Janet Reno kinda profiled them to death. After an expensive 51 day taxpayer funded siege of their Waco Compound, they were attacked with guns and tanks, and about 80 people were killed and burned to death in a massacre that could have easily been avoided. The main target, David Koresh routinely jogged outside the compound prior to the siege, and could have easily been apprehended without any loss of life.

Once again, we see that the use of "Larry" and "Intelligence" in the same sentence is pure comedy. And once again, Larry shows us that he just cannot keep to the topic of a thread, even though he criticizes others for doing the same.

I can understand the difference between the two. I'm pretty sure, though not a hundred percent, that 'we' were discussing sensationalized homeland shootings. You mentioned you were not hesitant to utter the words 'islamist terrorist'. At that point, you did not mention that pc would be the only thing that mattered, and that your identification of an enemy did not mean that citizens were not going to be protected from that enemy.

Yes, if 'phelpsies' are repeatedly involved in mass terroristic type shootings and bombings, they should be profiled even if the word isn't used. You've decided to continue the equivocating between Christianity and Islam by electing to compare them. Have you been able to dig up any CURRENT reason for law enforcement or intelligence, other than pc, to waste very limited resources on all inclusive investigation.

I've always mentioned that it seems laws are in place, but selective application sure looks like political motivation. You mentioned if an imam were bad that they would be 'likely' to be investigated. Why can't we say 'will'? Why did I bring up 'imam' again, it's because you keep insisting that if 'hierarchical' can be used, then there's some excuse for criminal or terrorist activity.

As for college debt, I can't see the current freebie mentality being anywhere near similar to the mindset that it took for you to work for your education. I believe 'free' will be a multi trillion dollar dead end, but I'm positive, the 'investment' will be worth it. New generations of 'leaders' are being conditioned to fight micro aggression, create safe zones, and turn off their feelings if something doesn't promote pc.

Craig, the simplest (and quite accurate) definition of terrorism: violence with a political motive. A bank robbery is not terrorism . . . unless the robbers are using the money to fund terrorist acts. Under that definition, it seems that blacks who target white cops for attack/assassination are terrorists. So we have issues in this country with terrorists who are not Muslim.

Given that Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world (I think . . . maybe Buddhism somewhere close), how can one avoid comparing them? Stop and think historically for a moment, Craig. Much of the Muslim world was under the colonial rule of Christian nations not so long ago. Some of those Muslim nations had to resort to what might be called terrorism--or maybe revolution, depending on how you look at it--to throw off the colonial yoke. If you haven't seen the movie "The Battle of Algiers" about the Algerian war of independence, it's worth checking out. War of independence . . . kinda sounds like us against the British, doesn't it? So, let's see . . . Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon . . . all former French colonies (not to mention a few African nations sub-Sahara, mostly Muslim, that were also French.) Egypt, what was then Palestine, Jordan, Iraq . . . all formerly parts of the British Empire. Not to mention Pakistan and Bangladesh. Again, add to that list various sub-Saharan Muslim nations, also part of Great Britain's empire. Indonesia was a Dutch colony. And this didn't end until after WWII. So pretty darned recent. Begin to understand why many Muslims--who tend, in general, to have very long memories when it comes to history (Sunnis and Shiites don't get along because of a battle that happened well over 1,000 years ago!) aren't always so well-disposed towards Christians and Christianity.

But as I explained previously, law enforcement cannot profile in the same way intelligence can--because they're trying to build cases that will stand up in court, and profiling can be used as a defense by those being charged. And it's not like this country hasn't had relatively recent incidents with non-Muslim terrorists. The radical left, continuing on from Vietnam days for sometime afterwards. Tim McVeigh--the most successful singleton terrorist this country has ever seen, based on body count from one attack. That's from the radical right. But the reason I said that an imam would LIKELY be investigated if he were bad: there has to be some evidence that he is. Law enforcement can't do blanket coverage of every mosque while neglecting every church. That'd be obvious profiling. Intelligence can. And if they can provide reliable information that something's going on in a mosque, then law enforcement can take a harder look.

Complicated . . . but remember, we're a nation that bends over backwards to protect minorities. Maybe because, at various points in our history, we haven't done such a good job of protecting minority rights.

And I don't believe I ever suggested that college should be free. That being said, it's clearly far less affordable now than it was for me. Darned near impossible for a kid without some scholarship assistance--probably quite a bit--to make it through college debt free, even if they work their butts off.

And you need to read what that dean at the U of Chicago wrote to incoming freshmen about safe zones, trigger warnings, etc. At least some indication that some college administrators are realizing that they've gone too far in the PC direction.

Not really an opinion; a deduced fact. To indict some one for a Federal crime in the US a Federal Grand Jury must be empaneled and must itself indict the alleged perp. No grand jury=no intent to indict. It is just that simple. The FBI cannot itself indict anyone. And NO Federal Grand Jury was ever called in re Mrs Clinton.

I agree that thing can get very complicated, much of it having to do with history, but I think I can discount all of history based on the policies we're being told are good for us.

Did you notice jean kerry threaten putin yesterday. He was whining about something that they didn't hold to from a couple or three years back. Whether he felt entitled to whine or has the russians trembling in their boots, he apparently couldn't care less about history.

How about that iranian money deal, a good investment? Do you think jean k. learned from history that the iranians prefer cash to electronic payoffs for funding their 'projects'? Are jean and the current pres trying to make history by welcoming a new member into the nuclear community?

Just kidding around Larry, point being, if our policy makers have no respect for history, what good does it do for us philosophers to worry too much about it.

And no, you didn't mention college should be free, but maybe you'll notice that it's the policy of the gal who would would be the guardian of the last eight years. By the way, why does 'bending over backwards to protect minorities' mean, drum roll, gun control? History tells me, at least one side should learn learn it's lesson and know better than to trust a reasonable, civil sounding lefty.

Thanks, and I now note you qualified it as IMHO.