Just look at all of what was said. He talks about his famous wall, about people having to come into the country legally, all about border security and illegal immigration immediately before and after those questions and specifically in response to some of them without missing a beat. Yet you and plenty of others seriously want to believe that right in the middle, he broke stride and talked about something completely unrelated to those subjects for two sentences.
That's pretty damn foolish if you ask me. The media is known for taking comments out of context and trolling with them. Hell, it's an inbred part of politics it seems. And yes, I'm refering to brother and sister becoming mom and dad because it always seems to be the same ones trying to smear the same people or types of people who are not part of their family. It appears you are caught up in it hook, line, and sinker too.
Either Trump's not smart enough to figure out that he is answering a totally different set of policy questions then the reporter is asking, in which case he should be pilloried in the media for not understanding the requirements of the job he is trying to get.
This is most likely it. It is completely supported by his answers. Look at his answers to the MSNBC reporter. When asking about the database it goes like this
MSNBC Reporter: What do you think the effect of that â" how would that work?
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming in to our country illegally.
SO how would a database of legal residents and citizens stop people from coming in to our country illegally? The answer to that is it wouldn't, but one that registers refugees and travelers destined to the US could track them leaving the US and track that they are actually here illegally. But in the same interview, another question was asked and answered in relation to illegal immigrants.
MSNBC Reporter: Would they have to legally be in this database, would they beâ"
Trump: They have to â" they have to be. Let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much.
So here again, he is talking about people coming into the county and the reporter is talking about a database still.
No he is not, he is saying let them in now. There is a difference. Right now, the only clearly demonstrable refugees according to existing US laws are the Christians who face beheading, crucifixion, torture, and death. Furthermore, even if the Muslims are qualified because of their religion, we are not seeing the Christians killing others in the area because of their Christian beliefs or declaring death to America and it's allies which is another part of the law's requirement. A refugee cannot be a threat to national security or the country nor can a person who participated in such atrocities that qualified others as refugee be considered a refugee under US law.
You need to cite that. As far as I can find, that specific conversation only happened in your head. None of the transcripts I can find have that line of statements at all.
No one is saying Trump didn't say something, they are saying it mean something else or it doesn't. They are attaching large swaths of bullshit that they have to reach to grab in order to make the outcomes. Even in the article you linked, they ask you to ignore the fluid dynamics in Trump's speech constantly referring to border security, people coming to the country legally and so on.
What you and this so called conservative who has an article on one of the most biased left sites on the web are doing is ignoring all of what was said in order to focus on what you want to be said when you ignore parts that do not support your position.
Here is the rub, Trump really did say these things, he was talking about border security and illegal immigrants not all Muslims in America or anything of the sort that is being portrayed here. This is more than obvious if you pay attention to all of what was said instead of what you think supports your claim.
Now you can get your panties in a knot over a political hack's misrepresentation of what happened or you can look it up yourself. It is pretty clear that regardless of what the reporter is saying or asking, Trump is talking about border security and illegal immigrants. This can only mean one thing in my opinion, that Trump was under a working assumption that the question was pertaining to illegal immigrants and border security.
lol.. I bet you never even bother looking up the audio or listening to it if you did. American Muslims is not all that clear but he was giving a speech on illegal immigration, talking to reporters about illegal immigration, and when someone asks him something, it is perfectly logical to assume he was continuing to talk about illegal immigration when he mentioned it specifically all around the questions. It is more likely that he didn't even hear or understand the "American" portions and understood it to be a question about the topic at hand, illegal immigration.
Trump is an idiot who will fail on his own. You do not need to fabricate shit or take shit out of context and basically lie in order to help him along the way. Take it for what it is, which is nothing near what you are trying to make it out to be.
That doesn't say what you think it says. But even if it does, then you have to realize that he is only repeating US law which defines refugee as
(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such personâ(TM)s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion
There is more so read it if you want. The rest basically allows the president for the same reasons to designate someone or sets of people residing within their usual country under the same set of criteria as a refugee.
So no, it is not a republican implementing any religious test, it is a republican following the law and saying take the people we know fit the definition but ensure they are who and what they say which is what is required elsewhere in the law. This is largely constructed by case law so I'll point you to a lawyer website
You need to put the koolaid down and take a step back from the slanted rags you are getting your news from.
No republican said anything about a religious test, that was a comment by the president in trying to mis-characterize what was said for political points. No republicans that I know of has attempted to deny rights to any religion unless it is the right to kill innocent civilians. Even this shit Trump supposedly said is completely out of context and if you listen to more than just the snippets, you will find that he was talking about border security and illegal immigrants.
I guess it is voluntary now. But I keep getting asked my race or ethnicity every time I deal with the federal government (even in person) like when I recently applied for a replacement SS card.
BTW, there is answers from so called voluntary questions here.
They are not considered accurate because of the law but they include the questions with the mandatory questions so I'm not sure a lot of people understand answering is optional.
If you listen to the interviews in which this is supposedly revealed, you will see that what is said isn't exactly what is reported. In the interviews you can tell he was still talking about the border and illegals entering the country. Even in the second interview in which he claimed it was all about management, the reporter said "american muslims" and Trump went on about securing the border and people entering the country illegally.
I'm actually somewhat surprised this type of gotcha news isn't being dispelled in more places and that Slashdot of all places has it on the front page. I'm not a trump supporter either. Quite frankly the idea of him having access to nuclear weapons scares me a lot. But I'm not getting the same statements from the audio of these supposed interviews claim was created.
I've often thought about crap like that. Get a few burner phones, find a stingray and say we are moving two kilos of cocaine, the pot is in and we need to move a bale or something. Perhaps talk about someone selling explosives and going to pick them up at a specific time and location and wanting backup to watch your back. Then identifying myself as an older person driving a car which make and model and license matches that of the local judge or something. Perhaps the mayor's wife or family or something like that. Maybe even taping the burner phone under the bumper or something so they close in for the parallel construction in confidence.
I'm not sure if you could get into trouble for something like that. It would seem that if they wanted to bust you for something, they would either have to fabricate it or reveal their illegal wiretapping as the reason for arresting you.
When I purchased my first computer with an actual hard drive larger then 500 meg, we had to select an operating system and purchase it separate. I ended up with windows 3 (which was later upgraded to 3.11 windows for workgroups- for the networking stack) because it came preinstalled on a I486 system and the price was about the same as the other systems I was looking at sans OS.
Marketing is about right. D.O.S or Disk Operating System was named so in order to get the "well. you need an operating system now" confusion advantage. Then when Microsoft started OEM bundling deals with windows that basically made it appear to be a free operating system, they had a huge leg up. Until then. I had purchased OS2 warp and DOS, both of which had Microsoft's name on it when you went to install even though you had to purchase it though IBM for a hefty sum. At this time, when you purchased a modem and went online (because the computers didn't come with them unless you paid for an add on when ordering), you were either stuck with a BBS screen through telnet or had to purchase a web browser. Netscape was my choice at the time too as it was leading in almost every area as a web suit and I was familiar with it from OS2. Then when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with win 95, it was a no brainer as my 3.1 investment was largely still compatible and I could upgrade and have an easier time with my sound card IRQs (sound blaster awe32).
Marketing is something MS did right. Of course they used their size and profitability from other areas of commerce to enhance that marketing. I will openly admit, I fell for it.
Stingrays wouldn't suffer any setback in this light. They work by simulating a cell tower and it is very difficult to find out that you are not connected to a legitimate tower.
Either way, the handset would have to negotiate the encryption key in which they capture or just mimic, or it would have to be hard coded into the system in which they already mimic. The same people producing the stingrays are likely the same producing the cell towers. Even if they are not, they are designed so your handset will not know the difference.
Well, it is still fruit of the poison tree but is only known as such if someone is willing to admit that was how they found the information.
Parallel construction largely relies on a lie being in place. If at any time it is discovered that this other source or means was crafted due to the illegal connections, it can and likely would be toss out with it.
As i said history is your friend. Israel has already attempted ending the settlements and it ended up with rockets being launched deeper into Israel because of the more close proximity and lack of civil control.
The easiest way to learn is to have your enemy brag about how they got you.
We've seen a lot of officials brag about how they achieved something when they brag about achieving it. But I guess they have to brag in order to justify the crap to the public.
If you were going on a mass shooting rampage and i was armed and shot you after your second killing, it would be considered a mass shooting. So if you are looking for mass shootings, you are not really going to find them in this light.
So i have to ask. What is so magical about police that show up ten minutes later and either capture or kill the shooter or the shooter decides to kill himself verses a person seconds away causing the same other than the amount of people dead?
You do know that Muslims and Arabs have been in the Israel government from it's start and continue to today right? Civilized Palestinians live and thrive within Israel's borders.
Lol.. give up. The parent poster isn't concerned with logic or reality. He just heard a bush was running for president and had to jab at GW so he doesn't get reelected.
If he doesn't understand that another president has been directing the country for the last six years, that the Bush running is a different Bush, or that this happened in another country, He will not be able to understand what the reference was to.
The vast majority of mass shootings in America have taken place where citizens are not allowed by law to carry guns and almost always are stopped when someone else with a gun shows up.
There is one case i am aware of (ohio) where someone assassinated a couple cops eating lunch and ran into a Wal-Mart where a concealed carry holder attempted to intervene but was unsuccessful and killed in the process. He did however occupy the assassins (2 of them ) long enough for unarmed people to escape and law enforcement to converge on to the scene. You cannot say he stopped them from killing anyone else nor can you say he saved anyone. All you can do is guess at how many others would have been killed if no one opposed them at all.
There are many self-defense shootings in the US that you can say did not turn into a mass shooting. However, when that happens you likely cannot say they would have either. That is because it is stopped before it gets that far.
Lol.. i guess you refuse to listen to what was said. The parts are not contradictory, they have different applications under different circumstances and conditions.
Do you find driving contradictory? I mean when driving on snow you decrease road speed and increase following distances. Does those changes throw you into a spin that you cannot understand?
I think you are confused. There is nothing wrong with using it as a manual. Peopl e do sometimes pick and choose but you cannot really say they use it as a manual if they do not know what it says.
Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand what is said.
Its because the barcode reader is really a fancy keyboard (when attaches via keyboard wedge). Software has nothing to do with it at that point. The software is more or less like a word processor in this sense. It recieved input from the keyboard but hit win+r cmd "enter" would open a command line and focus all input in it instead of the open document.
In other words, The barcode simply inputs keystrokes and everything you can do with a keyboard can be done with a barcode if not limited by hardware or a keyboard map
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at all of what was said. He talks about his famous wall, about people having to come into the country legally, all about border security and illegal immigration immediately before and after those questions and specifically in response to some of them without missing a beat. Yet you and plenty of others seriously want to believe that right in the middle, he broke stride and talked about something completely unrelated to those subjects for two sentences.
That's pretty damn foolish if you ask me. The media is known for taking comments out of context and trolling with them. Hell, it's an inbred part of politics it seems. And yes, I'm refering to brother and sister becoming mom and dad because it always seems to be the same ones trying to smear the same people or types of people who are not part of their family. It appears you are caught up in it hook, line, and sinker too.
This is most likely it. It is completely supported by his answers. Look at his answers to the MSNBC reporter. When asking about the database it goes like this
SO how would a database of legal residents and citizens stop people from coming in to our country illegally? The answer to that is it wouldn't, but one that registers refugees and travelers destined to the US could track them leaving the US and track that they are actually here illegally. But in the same interview, another question was asked and answered in relation to illegal immigrants.
So here again, he is talking about people coming into the county and the reporter is talking about a database still.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
No he is not, he is saying let them in now. There is a difference. Right now, the only clearly demonstrable refugees according to existing US laws are the Christians who face beheading, crucifixion, torture, and death. Furthermore, even if the Muslims are qualified because of their religion, we are not seeing the Christians killing others in the area because of their Christian beliefs or declaring death to America and it's allies which is another part of the law's requirement. A refugee cannot be a threat to national security or the country nor can a person who participated in such atrocities that qualified others as refugee be considered a refugee under US law.
You need to cite that. As far as I can find, that specific conversation only happened in your head. None of the transcripts I can find have that line of statements at all.
You entire position seems to be fabricated.
No one is saying Trump didn't say something, they are saying it mean something else or it doesn't. They are attaching large swaths of bullshit that they have to reach to grab in order to make the outcomes. Even in the article you linked, they ask you to ignore the fluid dynamics in Trump's speech constantly referring to border security, people coming to the country legally and so on.
What you and this so called conservative who has an article on one of the most biased left sites on the web are doing is ignoring all of what was said in order to focus on what you want to be said when you ignore parts that do not support your position.
Here is the rub, Trump really did say these things, he was talking about border security and illegal immigrants not all Muslims in America or anything of the sort that is being portrayed here. This is more than obvious if you pay attention to all of what was said instead of what you think supports your claim.
Take issue all you want. It just makes you look silly. He is clearly talking about the border and the country that takes management.
You can tell by the transcript, he is clearly talking about the border and here is the sentence before and after the one about management.
"It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming in to our country illegally."
"They have to â" they have to be. Let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much."
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Now you can get your panties in a knot over a political hack's misrepresentation of what happened or you can look it up yourself. It is pretty clear that regardless of what the reporter is saying or asking, Trump is talking about border security and illegal immigrants. This can only mean one thing in my opinion, that Trump was under a working assumption that the question was pertaining to illegal immigrants and border security.
lol.. I bet you never even bother looking up the audio or listening to it if you did. American Muslims is not all that clear but he was giving a speech on illegal immigration, talking to reporters about illegal immigration, and when someone asks him something, it is perfectly logical to assume he was continuing to talk about illegal immigration when he mentioned it specifically all around the questions. It is more likely that he didn't even hear or understand the "American" portions and understood it to be a question about the topic at hand, illegal immigration.
Trump is an idiot who will fail on his own. You do not need to fabricate shit or take shit out of context and basically lie in order to help him along the way. Take it for what it is, which is nothing near what you are trying to make it out to be.
That doesn't say what you think it says. But even if it does, then you have to realize that he is only repeating US law which defines refugee as
There is more so read it if you want. The rest basically allows the president for the same reasons to designate someone or sets of people residing within their usual country under the same set of criteria as a refugee.
So no, it is not a republican implementing any religious test, it is a republican following the law and saying take the people we know fit the definition but ensure they are who and what they say which is what is required elsewhere in the law. This is largely constructed by case law so I'll point you to a lawyer website
You need to put the koolaid down and take a step back from the slanted rags you are getting your news from.
No republican said anything about a religious test, that was a comment by the president in trying to mis-characterize what was said for political points. No republicans that I know of has attempted to deny rights to any religion unless it is the right to kill innocent civilians. Even this shit Trump supposedly said is completely out of context and if you listen to more than just the snippets, you will find that he was talking about border security and illegal immigrants.
According to the US census bureau, there is one.
https://ask.census.gov/faq.php...
I guess it is voluntary now. But I keep getting asked my race or ethnicity every time I deal with the federal government (even in person) like when I recently applied for a replacement SS card.
BTW, there is answers from so called voluntary questions here.
http://www.census.gov/library/...
They are not considered accurate because of the law but they include the questions with the mandatory questions so I'm not sure a lot of people understand answering is optional.
If you listen to the interviews in which this is supposedly revealed, you will see that what is said isn't exactly what is reported. In the interviews you can tell he was still talking about the border and illegals entering the country. Even in the second interview in which he claimed it was all about management, the reporter said "american muslims" and Trump went on about securing the border and people entering the country illegally.
I'm actually somewhat surprised this type of gotcha news isn't being dispelled in more places and that Slashdot of all places has it on the front page. I'm not a trump supporter either. Quite frankly the idea of him having access to nuclear weapons scares me a lot. But I'm not getting the same statements from the audio of these supposed interviews claim was created.
I've often thought about crap like that. Get a few burner phones, find a stingray and say we are moving two kilos of cocaine, the pot is in and we need to move a bale or something. Perhaps talk about someone selling explosives and going to pick them up at a specific time and location and wanting backup to watch your back. Then identifying myself as an older person driving a car which make and model and license matches that of the local judge or something. Perhaps the mayor's wife or family or something like that. Maybe even taping the burner phone under the bumper or something so they close in for the parallel construction in confidence.
I'm not sure if you could get into trouble for something like that. It would seem that if they wanted to bust you for something, they would either have to fabricate it or reveal their illegal wiretapping as the reason for arresting you.
When I purchased my first computer with an actual hard drive larger then 500 meg, we had to select an operating system and purchase it separate. I ended up with windows 3 (which was later upgraded to 3.11 windows for workgroups- for the networking stack) because it came preinstalled on a I486 system and the price was about the same as the other systems I was looking at sans OS.
Marketing is about right. D.O.S or Disk Operating System was named so in order to get the "well. you need an operating system now" confusion advantage. Then when Microsoft started OEM bundling deals with windows that basically made it appear to be a free operating system, they had a huge leg up. Until then. I had purchased OS2 warp and DOS, both of which had Microsoft's name on it when you went to install even though you had to purchase it though IBM for a hefty sum. At this time, when you purchased a modem and went online (because the computers didn't come with them unless you paid for an add on when ordering), you were either stuck with a BBS screen through telnet or had to purchase a web browser. Netscape was my choice at the time too as it was leading in almost every area as a web suit and I was familiar with it from OS2. Then when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with win 95, it was a no brainer as my 3.1 investment was largely still compatible and I could upgrade and have an easier time with my sound card IRQs (sound blaster awe32).
Marketing is something MS did right. Of course they used their size and profitability from other areas of commerce to enhance that marketing. I will openly admit, I fell for it.
Stingrays wouldn't suffer any setback in this light. They work by simulating a cell tower and it is very difficult to find out that you are not connected to a legitimate tower.
Either way, the handset would have to negotiate the encryption key in which they capture or just mimic, or it would have to be hard coded into the system in which they already mimic. The same people producing the stingrays are likely the same producing the cell towers. Even if they are not, they are designed so your handset will not know the difference.
Well, it is still fruit of the poison tree but is only known as such if someone is willing to admit that was how they found the information.
Parallel construction largely relies on a lie being in place. If at any time it is discovered that this other source or means was crafted due to the illegal connections, it can and likely would be toss out with it.
What exactly is illegal about it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As i said history is your friend. Israel has already attempted ending the settlements and it ended up with rockets being launched deeper into Israel because of the more close proximity and lack of civil control.
History is your friend. The settlements were abandoned once and it did little other than allow rockets to be launched closer.
The situation is more complex than the settlements. They might be part of it but not as much as you might think.
The easiest way to learn is to have your enemy brag about how they got you.
We've seen a lot of officials brag about how they achieved something when they brag about achieving it. But I guess they have to brag in order to justify the crap to the public.
If you were going on a mass shooting rampage and i was armed and shot you after your second killing, it would be considered a mass shooting. So if you are looking for mass shootings, you are not really going to find them in this light.
So i have to ask. What is so magical about police that show up ten minutes later and either capture or kill the shooter or the shooter decides to kill himself verses a person seconds away causing the same other than the amount of people dead?
What apartheid are you talking about?
You do know that Muslims and Arabs have been in the Israel government from it's start and continue to today right? Civilized Palestinians live and thrive within Israel's borders.
Lol.. give up. The parent poster isn't concerned with logic or reality. He just heard a bush was running for president and had to jab at GW so he doesn't get reelected.
If he doesn't understand that another president has been directing the country for the last six years, that the Bush running is a different Bush, or that this happened in another country, He will not be able to understand what the reference was to.
The vast majority of mass shootings in America have taken place where citizens are not allowed by law to carry guns and almost always are stopped when someone else with a gun shows up.
There is one case i am aware of (ohio) where someone assassinated a couple cops eating lunch and ran into a Wal-Mart where a concealed carry holder attempted to intervene but was unsuccessful and killed in the process. He did however occupy the assassins (2 of them ) long enough for unarmed people to escape and law enforcement to converge on to the scene. You cannot say he stopped them from killing anyone else nor can you say he saved anyone. All you can do is guess at how many others would have been killed if no one opposed them at all.
There are many self-defense shootings in the US that you can say did not turn into a mass shooting. However, when that happens you likely cannot say they would have either. That is because it is stopped before it gets that far.
Lol.. i guess you refuse to listen to what was said. The parts are not contradictory, they have different applications under different circumstances and conditions.
Do you find driving contradictory? I mean when driving on snow you decrease road speed and increase following distances. Does those changes throw you into a spin that you cannot understand?
I think you are confused. There is nothing wrong with using it as a manual. Peopl e do sometimes pick and choose but you cannot really say they use it as a manual if they do not know what it says.
Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand what is said.
Its because the barcode reader is really a fancy keyboard (when attaches via keyboard wedge). Software has nothing to do with it at that point. The software is more or less like a word processor in this sense. It recieved input from the keyboard but hit win+r cmd "enter" would open a command line and focus all input in it instead of the open document.
In other words, The barcode simply inputs keystrokes and everything you can do with a keyboard can be done with a barcode if not limited by hardware or a keyboard map