Wrath of Dagon

David Burge @iowahawkblog The most terrifying thing about a European breakup: American college students will have to remember the names of the countries they're in.

AOD is half off on Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/230070/

https://twitter.com/EddyElfenbein/status/746185748538236928

Statement from Trump: Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union, and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration. Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.

So what you're basically saying is "it doesn't matter how murky, nebulous and ill-defined our terror watchlist is, since it merely inconveniences those who are on it for whatever murky, nebulous and ill-defined reason". Ok, terror watch list and no fly list are two different things. Terror watch list is an information gathering tool, so just a suspicion is enough to get on it so that any further information that comes in can be properly evaluated. The no-fly list is when they have good reasons to believe that someone is a terror risk and is much smaller. Also few Americans are on the no-fly list, it's mostly foreign nationals. Of course there are still lots of issues of people having similar names and misunderstandings. I really don't like that the no-fly list doesn't follow due process, but it's a compromise, you really can't go to court in most cases when the evidence you have is top secret, and letting them fly is an unacceptable risk. I'm all in favor in improving the procedures of appealing for removal from the list as much possible.

Arms in "right to bear arms" have always been understood to be firearms, not knives and pitchforks. Btw, "“A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box." Frederick Douglass.

Well, that's our problem, we love the country but we hate the government. I don't think anyone loves the EU though. I wouldn't go so far as to say we hate the government. It has a job to do that we need it to do well. When it starts to things outside that job or do things it's not supposed to do at all is when we run into trouble. When the government not only fails to act in the interests of its citizens, but starts to actively undermine those interests, then yes, hatred is the proper emotion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/#462a2c08237a

It may hinder it, but it doesn't prevent it. He can take a boat. There's no right to travel in comfort and at the greatest speed possible. Also as your quote says, the question of constitutionality was not decided.

http://www.wnd.com/2004/09/26786/#! Not saying it's true, but it's true.

Again, a citizen doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to fly on an airplane. He does have a constitutionally protected right to own a firearm.

You can move, but not on an airplane. Due process is for being deprived of life, liberty, or property, not in the abstract. At least so far the courts haven't said the no-fly list is a violation of due process.

The NRA would never let that get through. They don't even let the CDC do research on anything related to gun violence. NRA said they're for keeping guns from possible terrorists, what that means in practice I don't know. I do know that all the Democrat proposals involve complete violations of due process. So now Dems are against the fifth amendment, is there any provision in the bill of rights the Dems are still in favor of? Wouldn't that mean that no flight lists themselves are violation of due process? There's no constitutional right to fly on an airplane.

Your Trump scenario is a bit too rosy, but the Clinton one is dead on. Edit: A rare victory for the rule of law, no thanks to the liberals of course: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/23/supreme-court-blocks-obama-immigration-plan.html?intcmp=hpbt1 Good thing Garland wasn't confirmed to the court, once again showing if we lose this election, we lose everything.

Well, that's our problem, we love the country but we hate the government. I don't think anyone loves the EU though.

The NRA would never let that get through. They don't even let the CDC do research on anything related to gun violence. NRA said they're for keeping guns from possible terrorists, what that means in practice I don't know. I do know that all the Democrat proposals involve complete violations of due process. So now Dems are against the fifth amendment, is there any provision in the bill of rights the Dems are still in favor of? Also notice how CDC stands for "disease control" not "gun control". Of course they're doing such a bang-up job of the former may be they decided to do the latter instead. Exactly.

If they really want to keep legal guns out of hands of dangerous people, they need to forget all these vague-criteria lists and pass a law that the government can go to court and prove by preponderance of evidence someone is a risk for violence and get a court order that he not be allowed to buy guns. That would at least arguably be due process and might be ruled Constitutional.

You're right, they were commonly referred to as cults, but the government prefers terms like "non-traditional religion" https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicf79.pdf However, if a religious group advocates for the murder of the non-believers and others, it is properly termed "radical".

Those were cults, which is how they were referred to.

What conspiracy theory did I advocate?

Obola is hardly Stalin, but the psychology of trying to avoid disaster by ignoring reality is strikingly the same.

Because Obola lives in a reality of his own, and never lets facts interfere. Also known as "the narrative". Edit: This whole administration looks to me strikingly like Stalin's Soviet government just before it was invaded by Germany. The front line commanders were not allowed to make any preparations for the invasion or even talk about the possibility, as this was considered provocative and panic mongering, even though it was obvious to those commanders that Germans were preparing for an imminent invasion.

Sorry its not clear to me what the point is, can you summarize in a line or 2 ? You want me to summarize two lines in two lines? My post was in response to GD's post above, if that helps you.

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/744879005321539584

I find it a bit strange on little the pope defends his catholicism. I wouldn't believe anything a vampire Camarilla boss says. The least surprising news of the year, DNC, the press in tank for Hilzilla all along: http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-the-dnc-and-media-conned-us-into-clinton/

Yes kids, we must all practice indiscriminateness. The liberal mind explained : http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/06/18/why-liberals-support-muslims-who-hate-everything-they-stand-for-n2180270 What activity, law or behaviour previously not liked by western society should be tolerated? What is to be gained by perpetually accepting such acts? If you answer with new restaurants and interesting music then you have missed what people are being upset about. I must not be explaining myself well enough here. You can be tolerant and still have a reasonable expectation that your laws will be followed and your culture will be respected. You do not need to accept such acts, but you do not need to condemn the many for the sins of a few. You have a mentally unstable homophobic Muslim man who is the son of a Afghani immigrant (who is also pretty unstable.) He stockpiled weapons and then killed 30 people in the name of ISIS. Saying the solution to this is to condemn all Muslims is no better than those that want to ban all guns. They are both short sighted and reactionary, and ignore the vast numbers of peaceful Muslims/responsible gun owners. Islam, guns, even his use of ISIS; these are all just tools that he used to carry out a terrible tragedy. They obviously amplified his instability, and that should not be ignored. But how come no one focuses on the root of this issue? He was a crazy person. This was evident long before the shooting. He had issues in school and there were red flags throughout his life. We have a serious lack of mental health care in the US, and no one seems to be addressing it. That's my take on this. It isn't going to get better by kicking out Muslims. Yes, he's insane, and his wife is insane, and his entire family is insane. You're now scapegoating the mentally ill, how intolerant of you. http://nypost.com/2016/06/18/why-the-lone-wolf-terrorist-is-a-myth