TheProgressiveLiberal

Edinburrow Glassgo

As an aside, the Colts have what is easily the lamest fanbase in the NFL. Look at the crowd reaction. They deserve Mike Pence.

Right. Dumb. But not quite dumb in the same way, or to the same extant, you all were assuming.

Adding up the costs Presidents and Vice Presidents incur is so incredibly lame. The plane and secret service come with the job. If they want to go somewhere they don't have the option of doing it like normal people, or even other government officials. Every President and Vice President uses the plane and security for personal use. It's part of their wage. It's the laziest of partisan arguments. It's meaningless, and doesn't change one persons mind about anything.

He posted the picture from the last Colts game he attended along with a tweet about being excited to attend the game. He wasn't at the game yet. Right. It was disrespectful. It's still true that he didn't make plans to go to this game for a public protest stunt. He had previous plans that were overtaken by political events.

Typed "when did Mike Pence plan trip to Colts game" into Google. Found an article that says the trip had been planed for weeks. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/08/politics/pence-indianapolis-flights-cost/index.html But of course that fact isn't highlighted in another instance of "fake news." They are going to prefer that the ignorant people thinking this was nothing more than a planned political stunt go on thinking that. His options were: 1. Cancel his trip, which was to see Manning's ceremony more than the game. 2. Go against his boss and watch an NFL game after players kneel. 3. Go to Manning's ceremony, but get up and leave if players kneel. Everyone in this thread before I arrived was misinformed on this topic. I knew what really happened without even looking it up because I am an American who follows the NFL. Yet somehow posting correct information and contradicting the narrative the that fake news is allowing to take hold makes me a troll.

Six straight posts criticizing Pence for this. One post from me offering an alternative explanation that naturally occurred to me but would not have occurred to most foreigners. Two more back and forth posts. Do you understand the definition of tedious? I'd assume 300 pages of post after post criticizing Trump, with some misinformation or misinterpretation thrown in, would fit that definition.

On this topic, one of the best things about Obama being gone is not having to hear the constant lectures about "that's not who we are" whenever he didn't like something that people were doing.

Again, do we know that he traveled to the game just to do this? I'm assuming he was there for Peyton's ceremony, but was stuck in a though position with how to act when the players kneeled because of what Trump has been saying in the past few weeks. He has the right to an opinion, just like the rest of us. I wish he'd leave the NFL out of his culture war, but then I also wish NFL players wouldn't use the national anthem as a stage for their protests. I suppose people have the right to dumb protests, though.

Does anybody here follow the NFL? I'm a bit out of the loop because I only listened to the Steelers game on the radio, and then I got angry about the game so I've tuned out the NFL until now. I'm almost 100% sure that Pence did not go to the game just to make this display. Peyton Manning was having his statue unveiled and number retired before the game. Peyton is one of the biggest philanthropists in Indiana history. He's also a Republican (supported Jeb Bush in 2016 if I remember correctly), so I assume he's friends with Pence. I'm sure this trip had been planned for awhile. But then Pence is stuck in a hard spot because his boss had been publically calling for a boycott of the NFL over the kneeling. I suppose this is the strategy they came up with. Go to Peyton's ceremony, and then leave when the 49ers guys inevitably kneel. It's dumb in my opinion, and disrespectful to Peyton Manning to upstage his day. Weird that you guys would have a problem with protests at football games though. I thought you all were supporting that. Or is it that you just support protests when you agree with them and have no actual principles on the issue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavia_(ship) Dutch shipwreck survivors are murdered by a break-away group of survivors

Not from Scotland. America wasn't built on immigration. It was built on conquest and settlement. Whether the immigrants who came in behind the settlers helped or hurt the country is a question that's debatable. Whatever the answer, we'd solved most of the problems that came with immigration by mostly shutting it off in the 1920s and largely assimilating the new populations. Any anti-immigration politician will have to deal with the Scarlet R in polite society, even if they are on the side of the majority. If I had to choose who to hang out with, immigrants from Mexico or immigrants from Ukraine, I'm picking Mexico. However, you also have to consider how the generations born here are assimilating and their level of economic productivity. If we look at areas with high Mexican populations we have a problem on those fronts. I'm for keeping immigrants under 5% of the population. Those should almost entirely be immigrants who speak English fluently from democratic countries with comparable economies.

Right, but this isn't the gun crime that gets people voting. Somewhere around between .02 and .03 people per 100,000 (this number is from Slate using Mother Jones' database of mass shootings in public places) will engage in a Las Vegas style public shooting of normal people for no discernable reason. It's way, way down the list of issues that people care about, even if you just look at crime issues. But it's the issue with guns that Democrats choose to push. So you're advocating laws that affect legal gun owners the most while affecting crime the least. It's terrible politics from a general election perspective.

I think immigration is going to make the country much, much worse for the people who live here if it isn't stopped. It already has made it worse than it would be otherwise, especially for the people at the bottom of our society. That's my view. Now, some of the Republicans are for open borders from an ideological perspective, and that's one thing. They are shills of big business that have lost all sense of civic duty towards their own country. But there are plenty of old school Democrats, who represent black areas or working class white areas, and patriotic Republicans who have dropped the ball when it comes to taking on the immigration lobby. And it's all because the "proper society" that they want to move in has redefined immigration restriction in favor of American citizens as "racist." We have to show them that they need to stand up for their constituents on this issue, and we are going to hold them accountable even if it means putting people like Trump or Roy Moore in office. Romney knew the truth about immigration, but he was scared shitless to say much.

The grownups are letting the weirdos destroy America because they're afraid of being called "racist" or "bigoted." The grownups need to go.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/gun-ownership-partisan-divide.html The only state where the majority of voters in non-gun owning households voted Trump was West Virginia. The only state where the majority of gun owning households voted Clinton was Vermont.

I actually went and looked up a list of massacres in Australia. If you'll notice all the articles talking about gun control always slyly specify "gun massacres." Between 1971, when modern massacres started in Australia, and 1996 when their strict gun laws were passed there were 16 mass killings. Between 1996 and present there were 10 mass killings. 3 were arsons with 199 dead. Only one of the pre gun control attacks was arson. I wonder if those people just switched tools. There were still two gun attacks. And of course there was the recent vehicle attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Places can have different laws. What the Supreme Court said was that laws can't be so restrictive that law abiding citizens have no way to own a handgun in their own home. DC's was worse in that there was no legal way to get any gun into your house with the way the law was written. If Chicago really wanted to reduce their gun violence they need to focus on criminals who own guns and the illegal gun market. The main reason that gun control isn't a winning issue for Democrats is that they tailor their policies towards reducing the ability of law abiding citizens to own guns, or increasing the bureaucracy they have to deal with. Even if gun control is popular by polls, people in favor aren't going to prioritize the issue as long as the laws are ineffectual laws aimed at law abiding people. Voters aren't stupid. They know where the gun threat comes from.

https://deadspin.com/the-future-of-hockey-remains-a-bunch-of-kids-with-irrit-1794951205

Toby Keith and Trace Adkins

Wheeler Walker Jr. For black names, it would have to be Muslim first name with ridiculously common British last name. Rasheed Wallace

You get that the gun culture in rural Idaho is an entirely different animal than in Chicago? It's 180 degree opposite.

I made it through about half of that before I couldn't go any farther. Curious what your actual problems are? It's no secret that the Mercer's fund Breitbart, like all media companies are funded by billionaires. And if this is the worst a left wing outlet can make Bannon and Milo look with access to their emails, well they don't come out too badly. Seems like normal stuff. Bannon gets mad sometimes and Milo is vain. Color me shocked.

Wait, you guys hug strangers? And it's not awkward?

I did live in San Antonio for a brief period of about 6 months. The small size of the Alamo surprised me. You can't even see it until you get by the buildings that surround it. Not Swampy though.

If my house were blown over, I'd much rather play catch with Trump than get a hug from Dubya.