How do you psychologically creep out a baboon into giving up his laddeeee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLTveviNeZo&t=6m56s

Amy totally made the Wapo:

It is difficult to think of a definition of religion that does not include Islam — an ancient tradition with practitioners who believe in one God, pray and try to live their lives in accordance with a scripture.

So why has this particular canard taken off?

Take a look at pics 10 and 15 of Iranians before the "revolution", but all are fantastic; the players searching for the lens!

http://www.wimp.com/20-thought-provoking-photographs-from-historical-archives-youve-never-seen-before

So that's where there I lost my contact lenses! joke comes from.

This is spot on. Anyone wanna make a wager on what the speech will be like?

Ppen's link is great. This guy is a gifted lecturer.

Speaking of Hitler, I’m ending my support of UC Berkeley, where I got my MBA years ago. I have been a big supporter lately, with both my time and money, but that ends today. I wish them well, but I wouldn’t feel safe or welcome on the campus. A Berkeley professor made that clear to me recently. He seems smart, so I’ll take his word for it.

I’ve decided to side with the Jewish gay immigrant who has an African-American boyfriend, not the hypnotized zombie-boys in black masks who were clubbing people who hold different points of view. I feel that’s reasonable, but I know many will disagree, and possibly try to club me to death if I walk on campus.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156778990841/berkeley-and-hitler

If Lady Gaga wants to shock people, the thing she could do is to actually entertain.

When her singing career was starting to go downhill, everyone was expecting her to even go more outrageous with the dresses and the makeup. Instead, she toned it down and went for the mundane look.

She managed to slow down her decline and it gave her a perfect excuse to stop wearing all that silly stuff.

Now let's see what happens.

It's not about refugees (see Obama 2009, no outcry from MSM or anyone).

It's not about stating some Muslim areas are hot spots for terrorism. (See Obama's list used by Trump. No outcry by anyone.)

It's about CONTROL. WHO can say WHAT and WHEN.

I'm tired of the Obama did it too rhetoric.

No Obama didn't do the same thing. I disagree with what Trump did and would do so even if it was something Obama did.

This link directly goes into sources from the government itself. Neutral Politics on Reddit is just that---an extremely neutral place to discuss politics. Those guys will link both the right/left.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/5qu5ho/whats_the_difference_between_trumps_travel_ban/

"on December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). The Act, among other things, establishes new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate."

Tl;dr: the difference is both simple, and large. Obama's 2015 act didn't ban anyone. It just added an interview to vet people from Iraq before they could obtain a visa. Trump's recent order goes far beyond that to an actual ban

Here are some more comments from those guys:

"Not trying to undermine the overall message of your comment, but referring to the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 as a "legislative action of Obama's" is highly misleading. This was a bill that was folded into the FY2016 Omnibus Appropriation Act (H.R. 2029), meaning Obama was basically unable to veto it without risking a government shutdown.
The original "Visa Waiver etc... Act" was H.R. 158, introduced by Republican then-Representative Candice Miller of Michigan, an immigration hawk who has published opinion pieces highly critical of the Obama administration's immigration policy. I haven't gone through a word-by-word comparison, but from what I can tell Miller's bill and the language in the FY2016 appropriation are identical. Section 6 of Miller's bill (analogous to Section 206 of the FY2016 omnibus) requires that the executive branch designate "high risk program countries" - this is the requirement that appears to have spurred the initial selection of the seven countries being widely covered in the international media at present."

Here is a pro-refugee biased source of why it's different:

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qtp75/eli5_right_leaning_buddy_claims_obama_instituted/dd3aaol/

I actually don't care that he banned people, but the method in which he did it. This guy captures my feelings:

"So it's okay with you that the XO was written and sent out w/o being checked for compliance by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel? And that it wasn't written w/any input from the State Dept? Or DHS? Or CPB? The three agencies that routinely deal with this type of thing, and do threat analysis constantly? And because it was done w/o any input, it ended up generating a lot of chaos, because the proper channels weren't respected, and the information wasn't disseminated properly.
That's what everyone is so concerned about--that this XO went out w/o any input from Cabinet level personnel or expertise. That it was written w/o soliciting any info from his own (supposed) political party. That it was just something that Trump wanted to do, so he did it. As much as he'd like to think that's okay, that's not what the Presidency is about--it's not an autocracy."

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/5qu5ho/whats_the_difference_between_trumps_travel_ban/dd866w0/

Calm down, everyone. It's time to chill and listen to some Gabriel Fauré.

This is fantastic. The K-man was a superb athlete. Y'alls be having a grand Sunday.

(Pats by 7.)

BLM Canada has officially declared SJW queen Justin Trudeau a "white supremacist terrorist."

https://twitter.com/Tumblrisms/status/828204196910489601

It's kinda considerate for them to announce it also in hand sign language.

What a bunch of crap.

This is the law.

It depends on positive ID and examination.

Now, tell me you want to set aside the actual law.

It's amazing how many damned hypocrites there are, yelling about immigrants they damned sure wouldn't want in their homes without a say.

How is it a ban if it only lasts 90 days?

@Crid: you win this entire thread with that @TPCarney tweet. These leftoids just cannot help themselves. To them, everything is political.

In the meantime, maybe this will be the runner- up: filthy leftoid pigs leaving garbage, and even tents and sleeping bags behind at a Dakota Access Pipeline protest camp.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/massive-cleanup-underway-after-dakota-access-prote/

Yes. It has actually come to this:

https://bearingarms.com/brian-l/2017/02/03/actionable-tips-staying-safe/

from da gov't to the judge (if any Federal judge can override a Presidential immigration order due to terrorist threat we all lost):

"The government brief supported the president's decision on both legal and constitutional grounds, starting with the law. And that starts with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which states:

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."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/justice-department-demolishes-the-case-against-trumps-order/article/2613988

> that @TPCarney tweet.

The man has a lot of good ones.

I heard Gaga actually kept her pants zipped, though

"I'm tired of the Obama did it too rhetoric."

History's a bitch.