covfefe
-
@Polygeekery
Quick, we need an emergency injection of covfefe for the server!
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
It was not a "Muslim ban", because there were two other countries with more Muslims in them that did not fall under the travel ban. It was clearly meant to ban travel from countries known to have a shitload of terrorists. Those terrorists happen to be Muslim.
The courts disagreed. A law doesn't need to target all members of a group in order to be considered discriminatory against the group. I strongly suggest reading the rulings issued by the various judges. The rulings will include citations to decades-old court cases that were used as precedent.
-
@Dragnslcr said in covfefe:
A law doesn't need to target all members of a group in order to be considered discriminatory against the group.
This is a group that we probably need to discriminate against. Discrimination is not inherently bad. Unnecessary discrimination is. In this case, to me, it seems necessary.
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
We cannot write an exemption in the law for translators?
Your president is obviously incapable of doing so or doing anything in moderation. So, obviously, yeah.
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
We cannot write an exemption in the law for translators?
Your president is obviously incapable of doing so or doing anything in moderation. So, obviously, yeah.
And everyone else is suffering severely from, hate, distrust, whatever, that they would never make a suggestion that would improve the law.
Much easier to ridicule him. Those voices are so numerous, the voices making suggestions are drowned out.
See everyone, how superior I am
-
We cannot simply ignore what he says on Twitter.
I don't know, it's been working pretty well for me.
Of course I live roughly as far away from the USA as it's possible to get on this planet (a closer approximation to my antipode would be Bermuda), which probably helps.
-
@Polygeekery I guess those statistics work if you redefine "terrorist" as "muslim" and "other religions" as "religions that are not practiced by any human".
I did one Google search to check this and the results were 9 articles along the lines of this one:
The tenth was from the website mentioned in the graphic you posted.
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
We cannot write an exemption in the law for translators?
Your president is obviously incapable of doing so or doing anything in moderation. So, obviously, yeah.
And everyone else is suffering severely from, hate, distrust, whatever, that they would never make a suggestion that would improve the law.
Much easier to ridicule him. Those voices are so numerous, the voices making suggestions are drowned out.
See everyone, how superior I am
Right. Behause he's so certain to listen to suggestions... the fact that he's directly contradicting what bis own people said mere hours before tells anyone with eyes to see that this is a guy who doesn't give a rat's ass about "suggestions".
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
And? So we can never do anything if there is ever unintended consequences? We can never weigh cost vs benefits? We cannot write an exemption in the law for translators?
It's being pointed out as ineffective, so you're just being racist.
The solution to the Muslim problem is admitting you're at war and go full scale WW3, finish this bullshit.
-
@wharrgarbl said in covfefe:
The solution to the Muslim problem is admitting you're at war and go full scale WW3, finish this bullshit
Crusades 2: this time it's personal!
-
Crusades 2: this time it's personal!
The game you have to play! Available December 2017!
-
Crusades 2: this time it's personal!
The game you have to play! Available December 2017!
I har thr's an arly accss vrsion coming out soonr.
-
@ben_lubar have you considered copying an
e
to your clipboard and pasting it in when you need to type one? There are plenty in this post alone
-
"Katar is a terrorist hotbed!"
"Thus we need to sell them fighter jets immediately!"
But sure, those people on civil airplanes are the problem :)
-
@Luhmann Indeed. If actual policy and rulings are based on tweets they also need to be part of a permanent record.
This is just judges rationalizing doing whatever the fuck they want instead of following stuff like the law.
-
@antiquarian it's one thing for Obama to have deleted tweets, but I don't recall Obama making tweets that were being cited as precedent towards legal rulings.
Because maybe tweets shouldn't be cited? These opinions are embarrassing. They could at least pretend to care about the rule of law.
-
@antiquarian you could always come to Europe and be a Euroweenie.
He probably doesn't want to convert to Islam.
-
@antiquarian said in covfefe:
We cannot simply ignore what he says on Twitter.
It's a good thing no one's suggesting that, then.
I quote:
why? Does every batshit crazy opinion of his that be spouts off without filtering it need to be a matter of "policy and rulings"?
That's very much a suggestion that we ignore what he says.
That is fucking retarted.
-
The thing is: Rulings (as in: Done by one or several judges in a court of law) are usually based quite a bit on the intent behind a particular act or action.
This is fucking stupid. They have admitted that the thing is within the power of the President. They don't give a shit about the law.
-
Like translators for the US forces who worked for you guys and as a result, their life is now in danger.
Oh, now that's a problem? What about
BradleyChelsey Manning? Fuck you.
-
@ben_lubar said in covfefe:
@Polygeekery I guess those statistics work if you redefine "terrorist" as "muslim" and "other religions" as "religions that are not practiced by any human".
I did one Google search to check this and the results were 9 articles along the lines of this one:
The tenth was from the website mentioned in the graphic you posted.
So...we should let in more Muslims in order to change that statistic?
-
@boomzilla I mean, we already have a question on the application form that says "are you coming to America to commit a giant terror attack", so hopefully that will stop them.
-
@ben_lubar The form also asks whether they've ever done that in the past. As if an actual terrorist would say “yes” to that.
(I've seen arguments about why such things are on the form before. They're BS. You kick people out — or otherwise lawfully punish them — for doing terrorism, not for just silly form filling.)
-
@ben_lubar The form also asks whether they've ever done that in the past. As if an actual terrorist would say “yes” to that.
If it doesn't weed out terrorists, at least it weeds out people too stupid to correctly fill out a form.
-
@ben_lubar said in covfefe:
it weeds out people too stupid to correctly fill out a form.
Wouldn't it be better to ask where chocolate milk comes from? It might stop that 7% from growing!
-
@ben_lubar said in covfefe:
it weeds out people too stupid to correctly fill out a form.
Wouldn't it be better to ask where chocolate milk comes from? It might stop that 7% from growing!
Chocolate milk comes from adding cold to hot chocolate.
-
@Rhywden From the article:
The state department provisionally approved the deal at the end of the Obama administration in language sharply at odds with Trump’s recent accusations.
-
@antiquarian said in covfefe:
@Rhywden From the article:
The state department provisionally approved the deal at the end of the Obama administration in language sharply at odds with Trump’s recent accusations.
Wait, I'll highlight another word for you:
The state department provisionally approved the deal at the end of the Obama administration in language sharply at odds with Trump’s recent accusations.
-
Wait, I'll highlight another word for you:
Here's another one:
The state department provisionally approved the deal at the end of the Obama administration in language sharply at odds with Trump’s recent accusations.
-
(I've seen arguments about why such things are on the form before. They're BS. You kick people out — or otherwise lawfully punish them — for doing terrorism, not for just silly form filling.)
why_not_both.mp4
-
@boomzilla said in covfefe:
Because maybe tweets shouldn't be cited? These opinions are embarrassing. They could at least pretend to care about the rule of law.
Which rule from which relevant law is being broken here?
-
Ooh, ooh! Can I try?
The state department provisionally approved the deal at the end of the Obama administration in language sharply at odds with Trump’s recent accusations.
-
Nah, it's clearly this one:
The state department provisionally approved the deal at the end of the Obama administration in language sharply at odds with Trump’s recent accusations.
-
@masonwheeler said in covfefe:
@boomzilla said in covfefe:
Because maybe tweets shouldn't be cited? These opinions are embarrassing. They could at least pretend to care about the rule of law.
Which rule from which relevant law is being broken here?
Yeah, exactly my point!
-
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
Performance seems to really be going to shit lately.
Yeah, we should just go back to
-
@TimeBandit said in covfefe:
@Polygeekery said in covfefe:
Performance seems to really be going to shit lately.
Yeah, we should just go back to
Or CS.
-
-
@masonwheeler You missed a bit. Here, I'll help:
The state department provisionally approved the deal at the end of the Obama administration in language sharply at odds with Trump’s recent accusations.
-
@hungrier Don't even try that. https://xkcd.com/391/ will protect me!
-
@masonwheeler said in covfefe:
Which rule from which relevant law is being broken here?
Rule of Law doesn't mean what you think it does:
-
@antiquarian Yes, actually I'm familiar with the concept. When @boomzilla complained about problems with the rule of law, I asked what the problem was in this particular case, and got a non-answer.
-
@masonwheeler said in covfefe:
When @boomzilla complained about problems with the rule of law, I asked what the problem was in this particular case, and got a non-answer.
Because you've got the situation backwards. Which is funny, because people who attempt argue against me like to use arguments that favor my position quite a bit.
See...my point was that there wasn't a law that was violated, but a judge decided that shoulder aliens were more important than the actual stuff that happened.
-
-
@wharrgarbl You can only work with the material you're given...