Political Comics, Memes, Jokes, etc.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-10-2015, 01:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: The only way he has done this it to be a black man with power.  That seems to have stirred up the fellas who don't take kindly to "those kind".

Ridiculous.

He stoked the flames when he said the Boston police were stupid. Did it before he facts came out because it was one of his militant buddies. Then tried to have a lame beer summit to cover his rear end. Instead of just manning up and saying hey I jumped the gun on this deal.

He always jumps to conclusions and it's always the same response..... Bad whitey

[GMDino]

(12-10-2015, 06:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ridiculous.  

He stoked the flames when he said the Boston police were stupid.  Did it before he facts came out because it was one of his militant buddies.   Then tried to have a lame beer summit to cover his rear end.   Instead of just manning up and saying hey I jumped the gun on this deal.  

He always jumps to conclusions and it's always the same response.....   Bad whitey

There was another poster on the old board in PnR.  He used to say that Obama was the biggest liar out of all the Presidents.  Said it repeatedly.  I kept asking for proof.  A study or an article or anything that would back up such a claim.  Eventually he admitted it was nothing more than his "opinion" and he was allowed to have his "opinion" without any proof.

He doesn't post in PnR anymore.


Or does he?

[GMDino]

(12-10-2015, 01:12 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Thanks for not using the full-frontal nudity one.

That's for Easter.  

[StLucieBengal]

(12-10-2015, 06:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: There was another poster on the old board in PnR.  He used to say that Obama was the biggest liar out of all the Presidents.  Said it repeatedly.  I kept asking for proof.  A study or an article or anything that would back up such a claim.  Eventually he admitted it was nothing more than his "opinion" and he was allowed to have his "opinion" without any proof.

He doesn't post in PnR anymore.


Or does he?

I didn't call Obama a liar. I called him weak and divisive.

[GMDino]

(12-10-2015, 06:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I didn't call Obama a liar.  I called him weak and divisive.

Yes, but its your opinion.  And when you called him weak in the past it was in comparison to your boy Putin.  

You have nothing other than your opinion.

Which sounds eerily familiar...

[StLucieBengal]

(12-10-2015, 06:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, but its your opinion.  And when you called him weak in the past it was in comparison to your boy Putin.  

You have nothing other than your opinion.

Which sounds eerily familiar...

No I gave you an example of his weakness: There are countless others. So it's not opinion. It's been proven by his own example.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-10-2015, 08:46 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Funny, kind of reminds me of how Jimmy Carter handled the Iranian students..

[SunsetBengal]

(12-10-2015, 10:07 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Yet, he continues to lead, and in this instance, rise in the poll numbers..

[StLucieBengal]

(12-10-2015, 08:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Funny, kind of reminds me of how Jimmy Carter handled the Iranian students..

Haha

[StLucieBengal]

(12-10-2015, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yet, he continues to lead, and in this instance, rise in the poll numbers..

People are just fed up. He will beat Hillary if he gets the nomination. The media is just carrying progressives water against trump.

Trump and Cruz are 1 and 2 in the latest polls. Would prefer to see Cruz buy Trump obviously is hitting the sweet spot with people.

[SunsetBengal]

..

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/151002_10151231580276107_1147431032_n.png?oh=b58312c0d1a53905b0afe1b2b0d668f2&oe=56E367FA

[Rotobeast]

(12-10-2015, 08:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Funny, kind of reminds me of how Jimmy Carter handled the Iranian students..

Yeah, but Jimmy had the sack to redeem himself by helping Putin out with Syria.

[Rotobeast]

(12-10-2015, 06:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's for Easter.  

You must have the un-cut (pun) version.
I only remember Brian as being flaccid, never rising.

[SunsetBengal]

..

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11226000_1661248707473055_678206823410050395_n.jpg?oh=f20f73cc707e7c352ac39828de180da6&oe=56E17B36

[SunsetBengal]

..

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11202652_972457682825516_6618981859590035308_n.jpg?oh=ba9dd349b4d341ee61078ac4572616e7&oe=571A66EC

[GMDino]

(12-10-2015, 08:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Funny, kind of reminds me of how Jimmy Carter handled the Iranian students..

http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/

Quote:ORIGIN:Following the 2 December 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump controversially suggested (temporarily) barring all Muslims from entering the United States.  During the ensuing debate over Trump's pronouncement, several web sites said that Trump's suggestion followed a precedent set by President Jimmy Carter barring Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1980.

One such comparison was made in an 8 December 2015 Frontpage Mag article titled "Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis: Trump is Just Like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter," which held that:

Quote:

Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against "our values" after all. It may even be "who we are". Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.

The claim quickly spread online, primarily among people who favored Trump's proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration. Web sites spreading the claim referenced a 7 April 1980 announcement by Cartertitled "Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions" and highlighted a portion of those remarks:

Quote:

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Stripped of context (and if readers squinted very hard), Carter's remarks bore a passing resemblance to Trump's proposal. However, the announcement's title ("Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions") suggested that the passage was part of a larger foreign policy strategy undertaken in response to a specific crisis, which was clear to those who read the speech in full:

Quote:

Ever since Iranian terrorists imprisoned American Embassy personnel in Tehran early in November, these 50 men and women — their safety, their health, and their future — have been our central concern. We've made every effort to obtain their release on honorable, peaceful, and humanitarian terms, but the Iranians have refused to release them or even to improve the inhumane conditions under which these Americans are being held captive.

Carter addressed the then-ongoing Iranian hostage crisis (which lasted for 444 days between 1979 and 1981) in the opening portion of his remarks:

Quote:

The events of the last few days have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.

In a broader context of an ongoing, direct conflict between Iran and the United States, Carter announced immediate sanctions on Iran, which included a cessation of diplomatic relations, a prohibition on trade, and assessment of previously-frozen Iranian Government assets. Along with several other sanctions, Carter ordered the cancellation of Iranian-U.S. visas and a moratorium on new visas, with exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations. After listing the intended sanctions, Carter explained the United States' impetus for them:

Quote:

In order to minimize injury to the hostages, the United States has acted at all times with exceptional patience and restraint in this crisis. We have supported Secretary-General Waldheim's activities under the U.N. Security Council mandate to work for a peaceful solution. We will continue to consult with our allies and other friendly governments on the steps we are now taking and on additional measures which may be required.

I am committed to resolving this crisis. I am committed to the safe return of the American hostages and to the preservation of our national honor. The hostages and their families, indeed all of us in America, have lived with the reality and the anguish of their captivity for five months. The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now. Other action may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages.

Clearly, Carter's fourth sanction pertaining to visas for Iranian nationals was in no way a security measure. Sanctions by definition are a tactic short of direct military conflict to elicit cooperation by other nations, issued to achieve compliance through discomfort or inconvenience. 

Throughout his remarks, Carter emphasized that the sanctions were a result of "patience" on the part of the United States government in securing the hostages' release, sanctions that were imposed only when the U.S. felt certain that the Iranian government was complicit in the detention of several American citizens in "inhumane conditions." The situation was critical, and the sanctions were a last-resort measure.

Carter explicitly outlined the reasons behind the issuance of sanctions (including visa cancellation for Iranian nationals) and underscored his intent to pressure Iran's regime. By contrast, Trump's proposal was markedly different: not a sanction, but a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy, and one directed at all adherents of a particular religion (regardless of their nationalities) rather than citizens of a particular country. Moreover, Carter's sanctions occurred during a lengthy period of escalating conflict between Iran and the United States (while U.S. hostages remained in foreign captivity), but Trump's proposal came in response to a mass shooting perpetrated by an American citizen and his immigrant wife.

Finally, Carter's sanctions were applied to Iranian nationals as part of a clear objective to secure the release of the U.S. hostages without military intervention, whereas Trump's suggestion applied to a far broader cross-section of visa applicants, which he described as a measure to prevent terrorist attacks. Historically, Carter's sanctions bore closer resemblance to Kennedy administration-era sanctions on Cuba [PDF, PDF] than Trump's anti-immigration plan.

[GMDino]

(12-10-2015, 09:39 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11226000_1661248707473055_678206823410050395_n.jpg?oh=f20f73cc707e7c352ac39828de180da6&oe=56E17B36

What about a middle class, middle age, white guy of European descent who has never collected a cent from unemployment in his life?

I bet I'm one of those....who opposes Trump.  

[GMDino]

[SunsetBengal]

Now that's just racist...


https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10703732_841897685840538_284711798383613127_n.jpg?oh=d871a26f03a02538d7576114048e5766&oe=56D4A337

[SunsetBengal]

Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by "force, violence, or other unconstitutional means." This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life's guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any "organization" that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited .