Bill would ban bicyclists from most 2-lane roads in Montana

YOU WANT LEGITMATE DISCOURSE ? the recent Portland riots are therein legitimate discourse

THEY have no memory for the savings n loan crisis or incroyable the Great Recession or 9-11. THEY are not lawyers.

take the Pinochet mechanics next door. Mechanic ? more or less intelligent but not with IDEAS and IDEA ANALYSIS.

doesn't happen.

no other way explaining why the pig farmers would vote the bad guys in again.

so what we have here is misrepresentation and a well earned Boston Harbor Tea Party where we can throw Bannon n Conway over the side.

non violent commentary follows

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-med...4-90B75054.jpg

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-8, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 2/4/17 4:43 AM, jbeattie wrote:
However, nothing in the Constitution or the criminal laws prevents one person from shouting down another. Students can shout down Breitbart editors, so long as they don't break any laws. You can shout me down. I can shout you down. Let's shout!

Students can and did shout down the president of Iran, who should never
have been allowed into the country per 8 USC 1182(a)(2)(G).

At least, that's how I interpret "Any alien who, while serving as a
foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried
out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom,
as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible."

--

The students were shouting in 1979 (and before). That section was passed in 1998 as part of a large-scale religious freedom act signed by that liar and sex-abuser, Bill Clinton, whose wife is Satan . . . oh wait, that black dude is Satan. So many Satans! I can't keep them straight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...om_Act_of_1998
See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-1...105publ292.htm

I remember the Iranian students protesting at SJSU. "Down with the Shaw . . . " over and over again. A group of frat boys -- a small group, because SJSU didn't have much in the way of frats -- were marching behind them yelling "cheese burgers, cheese burgers." I guess it was the Alpha Psi Dada fraternity.

-- Jay Beattie.

not fast enough ...


Meanwhile any Iranians entering the US were forced to undergo castration.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26...iel-greenfield

what happens is the US is sending back 3000 spies, 5000 US educated Persians, and assorted pathological types no one wants like Muriel.

Or you:

There's no solitary confinement hole deep enough in the darkest prison for any of those involved in this and this is MOST of the Cal student body.

On 2/4/2017 2:50 PM, wrote:
nstitution or the criminal laws prevents one person from shouting down another. Students can shout down Breitbart editors, so long as they don't break any laws. You can shout me down. I can shout you down. Let's shout!

In 1052 President Harry Truman signed into law the the McCarran-Walter Act. This was used to stop ALL immigration into this country for over 10 years. In the Presidency of Jimmy Carter this law was again used to evict 15,000 Iranians from the USA.

Now we have Trump exercising this EXACT same law to a FAR less extent and a Federal Judge attempting to take this government into his own hands. This man should be stricken from the bench and criminal charges placed against him.

FWIW: Last night I had a long conversation with a woman who works for an
agency that supports immigrants and refugees. She teaches them English,
as well as helping them make sense of American society. Her students
include everyone from a few college-educated men to the poorest of the
poor, with most from the lower end of the prosperity scale.

As you might expect, all those people (including the woman I talked
with) are highly stressed now. One specific problem is that her clients
from places like Somalia, Sudan etc. have never had much contact with
electronic media. They are terribly susceptible to "fake news." And
there are absolutely evil people who are deliberately delivering the
worst possible fake news and the most brutal harassment - saying that
all Muslims, all immigrants, all asylum seekers are going to be jailed
and/or deported, no matter what their legal status, saying that they
should be attacked wherever they are. Since the woman's clients have
very, very limited English language skills, she's having a very hard
time reassuring them. Not that it would be easy if they spoke perfect
English.

She described women (with children) who escaped Sudan, barely making it
out alive. She talked about one of those women breaking down in class,
because she heard she would soon be sent back, which would be a death
sentence for her and her kids.

She talked of two Iranian clients who were here specifically because
they worked for the U.S. forces in Iraq and were thus marked men where
they came from, unlikely to survive for long. Yet some want to send
them back. You know, "Thanks for your service when we invaded your
country. Now die."

She described one person holding up a smart phone with some Facebook
nonsense talking about killing all Muslims. The person said "Everybody
in America hates us."

How do you explain to a Sudanese widow that people like her are being
excluded because a bunch of Saudis flew planes into two skyscrapers?
And how do you explain that despite that, Saudis are still allowed to
travel back and forth?

How do you explain that this is not what most Americans want - and how
do you justify that so many actually Americans do want it?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/4/17 7:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
The students were shouting in 1979 (and before). That section was passed in 1998 as part of a large-scale religious freedom act signed by that liar and sex-abuser, Bill Clinton, whose wife is Satan . . . oh wait, that black dude is Satan. So many Satans! I can't keep them straight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...om_Act_of_1998
See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-1...105publ292.htm

Wasn't it 2007 that Ahmeddinajad went to Columbia Univ.?

--
Wes Groleau

On 2/4/2017 3:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/4/2017 2:50 PM, wrote:
nstitution or the criminal laws prevents one person from
shouting down another. Students can shout down Breitbart
editors, so long as they don't break any laws. You can
shout me down. I can shout you down. Let's shout!

In 1052 President Harry Truman signed into law the the
McCarran-Walter Act. This was used to stop ALL immigration
into this country for over 10 years. In the Presidency of
Jimmy Carter this law was again used to evict 15,000
Iranians from the USA.

Now we have Trump exercising this EXACT same law to a FAR
less extent and a Federal Judge attempting to take this
government into his own hands. This man should be stricken
from the bench and criminal charges placed against him.

FWIW: Last night I had a long conversation with a woman who
works for an agency that supports immigrants and refugees.
She teaches them English, as well as helping them make sense
of American society. Her students include everyone from a
few college-educated men to the poorest of the poor, with
most from the lower end of the prosperity scale.

As you might expect, all those people (including the woman I
talked with) are highly stressed now. One specific problem
is that her clients from places like Somalia, Sudan etc.
have never had much contact with electronic media. They are
terribly susceptible to "fake news." And there are
absolutely evil people who are deliberately delivering the
worst possible fake news and the most brutal harassment -
saying that all Muslims, all immigrants, all asylum seekers
are going to be jailed and/or deported, no matter what their
legal status, saying that they should be attacked wherever
they are. Since the woman's clients have very, very limited
English language skills, she's having a very hard time
reassuring them. Not that it would be easy if they spoke
perfect English.

She described women (with children) who escaped Sudan,
barely making it out alive. She talked about one of those
women breaking down in class, because she heard she would
soon be sent back, which would be a death sentence for her
and her kids.

She talked of two Iranian clients who were here specifically
because they worked for the U.S. forces in Iraq and were
thus marked men where they came from, unlikely to survive
for long. Yet some want to send them back. You know,
"Thanks for your service when we invaded your country. Now
die."

She described one person holding up a smart phone with some
Facebook nonsense talking about killing all Muslims. The
person said "Everybody in America hates us."

How do you explain to a Sudanese widow that people like her
are being excluded because a bunch of Saudis flew planes
into two skyscrapers? And how do you explain that despite
that, Saudis are still allowed to travel back and forth?

How do you explain that this is not what most Americans want
- and how do you justify that so many actually Americans do
want it?



I don't know.

You'd have to ask BHO who devised that list. Or any of the
last several Presidents who had various stops/ holds/ bans/
limitations from time to time. Or maybe go back and ask
those students why their countries have a longstanding ban
on Jews, period. Or maybe you could actually read the actual
order which does not include the worlds 'islam' or 'moslem'
at all. Or suggest that they read the damned thing before
going all emotive trump at you. It may well be that they
have access to a television so their input is garbage and
the output matches.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:49:39 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/4/2017 2:50 PM, wrote:
nstitution or the criminal laws prevents one person from shouting down another. Students can shout down Breitbart editors, so long as they don't break any laws. You can shout me down. I can shout you down. Let's shout!

In 1052 President Harry Truman signed into law the the McCarran-Walter Act. This was used to stop ALL immigration into this country for over 10 years. In the Presidency of Jimmy Carter this law was again used to evict 15,000 Iranians from the USA.

Now we have Trump exercising this EXACT same law to a FAR less extent and a Federal Judge attempting to take this government into his own hands. This man should be stricken from the bench and criminal charges placed against him.

FWIW: Last night I had a long conversation with a woman who works for an
agency that supports immigrants and refugees. She teaches them English,
as well as helping them make sense of American society. Her students
include everyone from a few college-educated men to the poorest of the
poor, with most from the lower end of the prosperity scale.

As you might expect, all those people (including the woman I talked
with) are highly stressed now. One specific problem is that her clients
from places like Somalia, Sudan etc. have never had much contact with
electronic media. They are terribly susceptible to "fake news." And
there are absolutely evil people who are deliberately delivering the
worst possible fake news and the most brutal harassment - saying that
all Muslims, all immigrants, all asylum seekers are going to be jailed
and/or deported, no matter what their legal status, saying that they
should be attacked wherever they are. Since the woman's clients have
very, very limited English language skills, she's having a very hard
time reassuring them. Not that it would be easy if they spoke perfect
English.

She described women (with children) who escaped Sudan, barely making it
out alive. She talked about one of those women breaking down in class,
because she heard she would soon be sent back, which would be a death
sentence for her and her kids.

She talked of two Iranian clients who were here specifically because
they worked for the U.S. forces in Iraq and were thus marked men where
they came from, unlikely to survive for long. Yet some want to send
them back. You know, "Thanks for your service when we invaded your
country. Now die."

She described one person holding up a smart phone with some Facebook
nonsense talking about killing all Muslims. The person said "Everybody
in America hates us."

How do you explain to a Sudanese widow that people like her are being
excluded because a bunch of Saudis flew planes into two skyscrapers?
And how do you explain that despite that, Saudis are still allowed to
travel back and forth?

How do you explain that this is not what most Americans want - and how
do you justify that so many actually Americans do want it?

It's easy -- the President can allow or exclude whoever the f*** he wants. 8 USC Section 1182(f):

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

This is how it will play out: https://aclum.org/wp-content/uploads...ion-of-TRO.pdf

So, you tell the Sudanese widow "f*** you, have a nice day." Look her in the eye long and hard when you do it. That's now the Amer-y-cun way. Are you not a patriot?

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 9:49:39 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

FWIW: Last night I had a long conversation with a woman who works for an

Since you ask what it is worth, Franki-boy, taxi-driver testimony isn't worth ****. It isn't even a platitude.

Andre Jute
I do this for a living

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:25:50 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:11:21 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:34:26 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a distinguished prosecutor agreeing with me that those thugs in Berkeley should be charged with sedition as well as common crimes of assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-sedition-laws

Gawd, is that overwrought:

Really? I'm an outsider, no Trump fan (I'm on record from before the election writing several times that it was an insult to the voters for the Democratic and Republican Parties to force a choice between the crook Clinton and the reality TV show host Trump on the electorate), and I live almost on the other side of the world, but to me a distinguished prosecutor of terrorists doesn't seem in the least overwrought when he lists the laws under which this violent scum in Berkeley can be prosecuted for maximum deterrent value.

"Whether it is Berkeley or Benghazi, it is standard operating procedure among the most influential, most allegedly mainstream Democratic politicians to rationalize rioting as mere “protest.� In their alternative reality, violence in the name of sedition is “free speech� — a passionate expression of political dissent — while the actual political speech they so savagely suppress is the atrocity."

That scum in Berkeley claimed they were exercising their right to anti-Fascist free speech while they smashed property and people in the process of denying Milo Yiannopoulos the right to speak. The irony must have escaped them: Milo is a homosexual Jew.

To repeat: a small number of individuals engaged in violence. "While the rest of the world may see student protesters as the ones behind the violence, campus officials on Thursday said non-students had hijacked what otherwise would have been a peaceful protest. And they referred pointedly to the fact that the Berkeley campus has been and will remain a bastion of protected speech, no matter what part of the ideological landscape its practitioners may inhabit." http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/0...t-free-speech/

I saw the same sort of behavior for several days in Portland. http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/...-donald-trump/ The organizer, or one of the organizers, is the son of one of my partners. Those peaceful marches were later hijacked by "anarchists" -- or whatever the thugs chose to call themselves on a given day. It happens, and it's unfortunate, and we're prosecuting them. http://katu.com/news/local/police-ar...-portland-riot

At no point did I support anyone who injures person or property to make a point. You're tilting at straw men.

-- Jay Beattie.

Per Frank Krygowski:
... two Iranian clients who were here specifically because
they worked for the U.S. forces in Iraq and were thus marked men where
they came from, unlikely to survive for long. Yet some want to send
them back.

That's about as cold as it gets - really exposes the nut-job-pandering
people in politics for what they really are.
--
Pete Cresswell