Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Johnette's Daddy]

The Muslim liberal arts students were too busy taking courses on "Photographing Hot Female ankles" to learn about building explosive vests.

How'd they get in, what with all the Auburn football players in the class?

[Professor Tiger]

Well, I hope those Auburn players were at least successful at that.

[Jungle Rat]

James Brooks got an A

[Professor Tiger]

James Brooks. Now that's a blast from the past. He and I were at Auburn at the same time. Same for Joe Cribbs and William Andrews.

[Jungle Rat]

I don't care

[Professor Tiger]

So you just care about James Brooks - at least enough to spontaneously post about him?

[Jungle Rat]

WHO-DEY!

[Professor Tiger]

Shifting gears a bit: JD, you are uncharacteristically silent about the police shooting in Chicago. Same bad story - white cop shoots a young black male on a video which shows it to be downright murder.

But the unique twist is, the shooting took place well over a year ago. Mayor Emmanuel suppressed it so that he could be elected.

This kind of story would usually result in a swift and lengthy response in 400 pitch headlines. Why the quiet response in this case?

[Johnette's Daddy]

Shifting gears a bit: JD, you are uncharacteristically silent about the police shooting in Chicago. Same bad story - white cop shoots a young black male on a video which shows it to be downright murder.

But the unique twist is, the shooting took place well over a year ago. Mayor Emmanuel suppressed it so that he could be elected.

This kind of story would usually result in a swift and lengthy response in 400 pitch headlines. Why the quiet response in this case?

1 - I've been busy

2 - "Res ipsa loquitur" - Police report is factually and purposefully incorrect, 60% of the police video cameras were mysteriously inoperative, the police seize the videotapes from the store across the street and 86 minutes are mysteriously erased, 10 officers hold their fire throughout, even though the one who was "scared for his life" puts 16 rounds into the back of the victim (and then tries to reload) . . . this is a case that will probably put Chicago PD under a federal consent decree (which is a GOOD thing, IMO).

WRT Hizzoner the Mayor, no reason to defend Rahm and no way I would try to - he's a James Carville/Karl Rove type - excellent at the down & dirty of getting folks elected but has absolutely no business as a civic leader or policy maker. He's an awful Mayor, which is no surprise given that he was an awful WH Chief of Staff.

[Jungle Rat]

Murder.

[Professor Tiger]

JD, I'm glad you weren't quiet to cover for Rhambo. Chicago PD has been crooked since Prohibition. Tampering with those cameras to cover up for felonious behavior should put some people in jail. Just like Hillary's disappearing emails and the IRS destroyed servers should have.

[10ac]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

[Toemeesleather]

Pres­id­ent Obama needs to mail Rahm Emanuel a dead fish in a box. Hil­lary Clin­ton should de­liv­er it. For the in­teg­rity of the party that rep­res­ents a vast ma­jor­ity of black voters, Demo­crat­ic lead­ers every­where need to send the Chica­go may­or a mes­sage: You’re dead to us.

A long­time lieu­ten­ant for the Clin­ton fam­ily and former chief of staff in the Obama White House, Emanuel nev­er hes­it­ated to muscle weak or dis­loy­al Demo­crats out of power. It’s time to flip the script on the en­for­cer nick­named “Rahmbo.”

The most lo­gic­al con­clu­sion is that po­lice wanted to duck ac­count­ab­il­ity and Emanuel wanted to avoid los­ing his Feb. 24, 2015 reelec­tion amid na­tion­al un­rest over a po­lice shoot­ing in Fer­guson, Mis­souri.

Hmmmmm, substitute Benghazi for Ferguson....the apple don't fall far from da tree.....

[Toemeesleather]

Washington (CNN) - As President Barack Obama's approval rating hits another all-time low, a new national survey also indicates that Americans say the President has less power than congressional Republicans when it comes to shaping events over the next year.

According to a CNN/ORC poll released Thursday, 41% of Americans approve of the job the President's doing in the White House, the lowest level for that crucial indicator in CNN polling. Fifty-six percent questioned say they disapprove of Obama's performance, an all-time high in CNN surveys.

The President's approval rating has now reached new lows or tied his all-time lows in polls released over the past three weeks from CNN/ORC, CBS News, ABC News/Washington Post, Quinnipiac University, National Journal Heartland Monitor, and NBC News/Wall Street Journal. And the CNN survey is the fourth non-partisan live operator national poll released this week to put Obama's approval rating between 40% and 42%. A CBS News survey released Wednesday showed the President's approval rating at 37%.


...and that idiotic speech on TV last night made it worse.

[Professor Tiger]

Obama's poll ratings are contained.

[sardis]

My condolences to tick and DSL for the election loss of their comrades in Venezuela...

[hedge]

"Hmmmmm, substitute Benghazi for Ferguson....the apple don't fall far from da tree....."

I wish you would fall from a tree. A redwood, preferably....

[Toemeesleather]

Of course Trump is in trouble again for saying crazy stuff about Muslims, it's on every channel, what you have to search for is the just as crazy stuff coming from this admin, like the AG saying...

In an interview Sunday about the San Bernardino shootings that killed 14 people, Lynch said she was "not sure" which ideology the San Bernardino shooters were driven by.

[crashcourse]

Chicago police have to have the highest rate of ptsd of anywhere in the country

this is what they face everyday

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... icago.html

why is a Chicago policeman supposed to react any different then 1000's of brainwashed army vets who commit atrocities in Vietnam or Iraq or aftghanistan

of note most law enforcement agenicies are reporting a significant drop in applicants due to low pay and bad publicity. active shooters in chirAQ always seem to get away with it. active shooter in California able to shoot 25 people and get all the way back home even thought it was in the middle of town and there was a police exercise going on a short distance away--yet we seem to be doing everything we can to discourage young men from becoming cops. 5 minutes of coverage for the cop who told the people he was escorting out of the building i'll take a bullet for you. 5 months of continuous coverage for Chicago police chasing people with weapons who are on PCP in the middle of a 4 lane highway in an environment where there are 500 murders a year committed.

why are you running down an busy road with a weapon in your hand when the police are telling you to halt

in this day and age if that runner had been muslim (farook) instead of black under the same circumstances would we even care?

[Toemeesleather]

How does a man who entered the White House vowing to restore science to its proper place tell us that gun control is the answer to terrorism?

After all, California already has strict gun control, as does France, which just had its second terrorist massacre this year. Not to mention that the one time when terrorists with assault rifles and body armor were foiled, it was because an off-duty traffic cop in Garland, Texas, was carrying a gun—and used it to shoot the two heavily armed Islamists before they could kill anyone.

Or that “common sense gun control” would have done nothing to stop Richard Reid (the unsuccessful shoe-bomber); the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston (pressure cookers) or the 9/11 hijackers (box-cutters). Maybe the president should be demanding common sense pressure-cooker control.


Yet while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.

Understand this, and you understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.

Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil. So liberals inveigh against the instruments the evil use rather than the evil that motivates them.

Not that there aren’t measures society can embrace to keep the innocent from being shot and killed. The best example may be New York City from 2002-13, during Ray Kelly’s last stint as police commissioner, when the NYPD was bringing the murder rate to record lows through America’s most effective gun-control program: stop-and-frisk.

This was gun control for bad guys, under the theory that when you take guns away from bad people—or at least make them afraid to carry guns on the street—you reduce shootings. But it was savaged by liberals. Because they don’t want just the bad guys’ guns. They want yours.

So they demonize guns while fighting approaches that try to identify threats, whether from mentally ill individuals such as Adam Lanza, who went on a murderous rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, or terrorists such as Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik. Surely the key to distinguishing between the millions of law-abiding Muslims and those who mean us harm is intelligence.

Nevertheless, the urge to blame the weapon has deep liberal roots. It was particularly pronounced in the latter years of the Cold War when Ronald Reagan was president.

Even as Reagan was applying the pressure that would ultimately bring down the Berlin Wall in 1989—from arming the Afghan resistance to supporting Poland’s Solidarity movement to rebuilding America’s defenses—liberals derided him as a warmonger. Two things especially irked them: He’d called the U.S.S.R. the Evil Empire, and he was skeptical about arms control for the sake of arms control.

So when the Gipper walked away from the 1986 Reykjavik summit because Mikhail Gorbachev insisted his price for a nukes deal was the end of missile defense, Reagan was derided as a dunce. But his decision proved one of his finest moments: Scarcely a year later the Soviets caved and Mr. Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Bad regimes are like bad guys in this respect. They’ll take a deal they know has no teeth. But they will accept a genuine arms reduction only when the good guys put them in a position where they have little or no choice.


Meanwhile, we’ve just endured what may be the first successful ISIS-inspired attack on the homeland. And like her former boss, Hillary Clinton is demanding the government “take action now” on guns.

Back and forth it goes. Instead of debating the antiterror policy of the past seven years—the wisdom of ending the National Security Agency’s metadata program, whether ISIS can be knocked out without any ground troops, how the lack of nerve on Syria fed this mess, or whether Islamist terror can be defeated so long as our leaders refuse to call it by its rightful name—we’re all arguing over gun control.

Then again, if you were Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, isn’t this the debate you’d prefer?