2020...
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
You have your hoodie on backward.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Harris: I’m not in favor of decriminalizing illegal immigration, I just won’t treat it like a crime!
ED MORRISSEY Posted at 11:31 am on July 27, 2019
“Let me just be very clear,” Kamala Harris tells Meghan McCain right before she does the exact opposite. It’s rare to see an experienced politician contradict him/herself in the same appearance, but Harris manages to do almost within the same breath. When McCain declares that Harris is for decriminalization, Harris objects, saying “I am not in favor of decriminalizing.” In the very next sentence, Harris then says “we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented and cross borders as criminals.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Border victory: U.S. and Guatemala sign agreement on asylum-seekers
If that’s Harris’ idea of “very clear,” it explains a lot about her campaign:
Elizabeth Harrington
✔@LizRNC
· 23h
Replying to @LizRNC
Struggling to explain how when imposing her government takeover of health care, she will magically find $32 trillion without taxing the Middle Class
Elizabeth Harrington
✔@LizRNC
On Open Borders:
"I am not in favor of decriminalizing, um, or, or, not having, um, consequence for--we have to keep--let me just be very clear"
894
9:56 AM - Jul 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
754 people are talking about this
I had to transcribe this word salad to see if it made any more sense as text. Nope!
MCCAIN: You’re for decriminalizing border crossings, one of things people were [inaudible] at the debate. Do you agree with AOC that we should get rid of DHS altogether?
HARRIS: That’s not correct. I’m not in favor of decriminalizing, or not having consequence for — we have to keep — let me just be very clear. We have to have a secure border, but I am in favor of saying we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented and cross borders as criminals. That’s correct. That is correct. And what we’ve got to do is we cannot have any more policy like we have under this current president, that is about inhumane conduct, that is about putting babies in cages, that is about separating children from their parents. And we have got to have policies that is about passing comprehensive immigration reform with the pathway toward citizenship, shutting down these private detention facilities —
MCCAIN: Clarify this for me, though, because I find it confusing.
HARRIS: Yes, yes.
MCCAIN: I believe that if someone crosses over the border illegally, it’s illegal. And you would decriminalize it.
HARRIS: I would not make it a crime punishable by jail. It should be a civil enforcement issue, but not a criminal enforcement issue.
MCCAIN: Okay.
HARRIS: There should be — you know, you gotta play by the rules, but we can’t treat people like criminals.
“We can’t treat people like criminals”? What exactly did Harris do as California’s Attorney General, anyway? She didn’t have that trouble when it came to parents of truant students, for example. In 2011, Harris explicitly threatened parents with the “full force and consequences of the law” after the state legislature made truancy a crime in the state’s penal code.
ED MORRISSEY Posted at 11:31 am on July 27, 2019
“Let me just be very clear,” Kamala Harris tells Meghan McCain right before she does the exact opposite. It’s rare to see an experienced politician contradict him/herself in the same appearance, but Harris manages to do almost within the same breath. When McCain declares that Harris is for decriminalization, Harris objects, saying “I am not in favor of decriminalizing.” In the very next sentence, Harris then says “we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented and cross borders as criminals.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Border victory: U.S. and Guatemala sign agreement on asylum-seekers
If that’s Harris’ idea of “very clear,” it explains a lot about her campaign:
Elizabeth Harrington
✔@LizRNC
· 23h
Replying to @LizRNC
Struggling to explain how when imposing her government takeover of health care, she will magically find $32 trillion without taxing the Middle Class
Elizabeth Harrington
✔@LizRNC
On Open Borders:
"I am not in favor of decriminalizing, um, or, or, not having, um, consequence for--we have to keep--let me just be very clear"
894
9:56 AM - Jul 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
754 people are talking about this
I had to transcribe this word salad to see if it made any more sense as text. Nope!
MCCAIN: You’re for decriminalizing border crossings, one of things people were [inaudible] at the debate. Do you agree with AOC that we should get rid of DHS altogether?
HARRIS: That’s not correct. I’m not in favor of decriminalizing, or not having consequence for — we have to keep — let me just be very clear. We have to have a secure border, but I am in favor of saying we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented and cross borders as criminals. That’s correct. That is correct. And what we’ve got to do is we cannot have any more policy like we have under this current president, that is about inhumane conduct, that is about putting babies in cages, that is about separating children from their parents. And we have got to have policies that is about passing comprehensive immigration reform with the pathway toward citizenship, shutting down these private detention facilities —
MCCAIN: Clarify this for me, though, because I find it confusing.
HARRIS: Yes, yes.
MCCAIN: I believe that if someone crosses over the border illegally, it’s illegal. And you would decriminalize it.
HARRIS: I would not make it a crime punishable by jail. It should be a civil enforcement issue, but not a criminal enforcement issue.
MCCAIN: Okay.
HARRIS: There should be — you know, you gotta play by the rules, but we can’t treat people like criminals.
“We can’t treat people like criminals”? What exactly did Harris do as California’s Attorney General, anyway? She didn’t have that trouble when it came to parents of truant students, for example. In 2011, Harris explicitly threatened parents with the “full force and consequences of the law” after the state legislature made truancy a crime in the state’s penal code.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Traumatized. The lot of 'em.Harris: I’m not in favor of decriminalizing illegal immigration, I just won’t treat it like a crime!
ED MORRISSEY Posted at 11:31 am on July 27, 2019
“Let me just be very clear,” Kamala Harris tells Meghan McCain right before she does the exact opposite. It’s rare to see an experienced politician contradict him/herself in the same appearance, but Harris manages to do almost within the same breath. When McCain declares that Harris is for decriminalization, Harris objects, saying “I am not in favor of decriminalizing.” In the very next sentence, Harris then says “we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented and cross borders as criminals.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Border victory: U.S. and Guatemala sign agreement on asylum-seekers
If that’s Harris’ idea of “very clear,” it explains a lot about her campaign:
Elizabeth Harrington
✔@LizRNC
· 23h
Replying to @LizRNC
Struggling to explain how when imposing her government takeover of health care, she will magically find $32 trillion without taxing the Middle Class
Elizabeth Harrington
✔@LizRNC
On Open Borders:
"I am not in favor of decriminalizing, um, or, or, not having, um, consequence for--we have to keep--let me just be very clear"
894
9:56 AM - Jul 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
754 people are talking about this
I had to transcribe this word salad to see if it made any more sense as text. Nope!
MCCAIN: You’re for decriminalizing border crossings, one of things people were [inaudible] at the debate. Do you agree with AOC that we should get rid of DHS altogether?
HARRIS: That’s not correct. I’m not in favor of decriminalizing, or not having consequence for — we have to keep — let me just be very clear. We have to have a secure border, but I am in favor of saying we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented and cross borders as criminals. That’s correct. That is correct. And what we’ve got to do is we cannot have any more policy like we have under this current president, that is about inhumane conduct, that is about putting babies in cages, that is about separating children from their parents. And we have got to have policies that is about passing comprehensive immigration reform with the pathway toward citizenship, shutting down these private detention facilities —
MCCAIN: Clarify this for me, though, because I find it confusing.
HARRIS: Yes, yes.
MCCAIN: I believe that if someone crosses over the border illegally, it’s illegal. And you would decriminalize it.
HARRIS: I would not make it a crime punishable by jail. It should be a civil enforcement issue, but not a criminal enforcement issue.
MCCAIN: Okay.
HARRIS: There should be — you know, you gotta play by the rules, but we can’t treat people like criminals.
“We can’t treat people like criminals”? What exactly did Harris do as California’s Attorney General, anyway? She didn’t have that trouble when it came to parents of truant students, for example. In 2011, Harris explicitly threatened parents with the “full force and consequences of the law” after the state legislature made truancy a crime in the state’s penal code.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Private Equity Is Essential to Entrepreneurship and the Fuel to Prosperity
Elizabeth Warren wants to bury private equity. Here’s why that is a bad idea.
Friday, July 26, 2019
https://fee.org/articles/private-eq...and-the-fuel-to-prosperity/?utm_source=ribbon
Elizabeth Warren wants to bury private equity. Here’s why that is a bad idea.
Free Enterprise and Private Equity
I have a love-hate relationship with private equity. As a mergers and acquisitions attorney, I spend more of my time representing sellers of companies, or even corporate buyers, than representing private equity. I have had vigorous negotiations with private equity firms and their attorneys. However, I respect the important role private equity firms have in the free enterprise system. Free enterprise is the engine of American prosperity; private capital is often the fuel to that engine. Unfortunately, presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) doesn’t see it this way.
Rolling out a new plan to tighten the grip on private equity, Warren hyperbolically calls PE firms “vampires” that engage in “legalized looting.” Instead of looting the economy, as Warren’s punitive wealth tax plans would, private equity firms often play an important role in entrepreneurship and the full life cycle of a business. For instance, Ernst & Young estimates that PE-backed activity generates around 5 percent of US GDP.
Reminds me of this gem:
Elizabeth Warren wants to bury private equity. Here’s why that is a bad idea.
Friday, July 26, 2019
https://fee.org/articles/private-eq...and-the-fuel-to-prosperity/?utm_source=ribbon
Elizabeth Warren wants to bury private equity. Here’s why that is a bad idea.
Free Enterprise and Private Equity
I have a love-hate relationship with private equity. As a mergers and acquisitions attorney, I spend more of my time representing sellers of companies, or even corporate buyers, than representing private equity. I have had vigorous negotiations with private equity firms and their attorneys. However, I respect the important role private equity firms have in the free enterprise system. Free enterprise is the engine of American prosperity; private capital is often the fuel to that engine. Unfortunately, presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) doesn’t see it this way.
Rolling out a new plan to tighten the grip on private equity, Warren hyperbolically calls PE firms “vampires” that engage in “legalized looting.” Instead of looting the economy, as Warren’s punitive wealth tax plans would, private equity firms often play an important role in entrepreneurship and the full life cycle of a business. For instance, Ernst & Young estimates that PE-backed activity generates around 5 percent of US GDP.
Reminds me of this gem:
Bruddah IZ
DA
Elizabeth Warren played by GP:
What on earth would you know about private equity? Don’t you receive a federal paycheck? You don’t give to charity. You aren’t in stocks. LOL!!!
You’re not an entrepreneur...what else don’t you have to do with the article you posted?
Not that you would know, but PE has done the opposite of foster entrepreneurship. It invests in existing businesses looking for a flip. It doesn’t nurture entrepreneurs at all. You haven’t dealt with it, so you wouldn’t know. I would.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Poser.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Awwww you're jealous.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Messpola still wearing his collateralized debt as an asset cape without knowing how his fictional equity fails the liquidity test, rate of return test, and safety test.
Truth hurts, doesn't it. You do nothing and know less...ouch!
And I'm a poser? LOL.
Maybe he went back to fucking goats, an upgrade from this scum.
Report: Ilhan Omar has split from her husband
JOHN SEXTON Posted at 3:21 pm on July 26, 2019
This comes from the Daily Mail which has labeled it an exclusive. The big caveat here is that there’s no confirmation of this claim from Omar, from her husband, or from her office. The Daily Mail is basing this on Omar apparent change in living arrangements:
ADVERTISEMENT
Former MSNBC host Krystal Ball: MSNBC's Russiagate conspiracies have done major damage to the left
Omar has now dumped her current husband Ahmed Hirsi – who she first married in a religious ceremony in 2002 and divorced in 2008 – and moved into a penthouse apartment in one of Minneapolis’s trendiest neighborhoods, DailyMail.com has learned exclusively.
But Hirsi, is also spending time at the apartment, which is just a block from the Mississippi River in the Mill District sector of Minnesota’s largest city, when she is out of town.
‘Wow,’ said Hirsi, when approached about the split by DailyMail.com outside the complex. ‘I can’t comment on that…
‘He only goes there when Ilhan is in DC,’ one family friend told DailyMail.com. ‘When she’s in Minneapolis he sleeps at his house.’
That’s about the extent of the confirmation in this report. The husband and Omar’s office won’t deny it and an anonymous source says they are living apart. The DM headline mentions them heading for divorce but there’s nothing in the story to support that. It seems to be an inference based on the current living arrangements. But there could be other explanations. Maybe this is a temporary separation?
ADVERTISEMENT
Obviously, the reason this is news, assuming it proves to be accurate, is that Omar has already been under a fair amount of scrutiny for her unusual marital history. She originally married her current husband Ahmed Hirsi in 2002 but that marriage was religious and not legal. In 2008 they separated and the following year she married Ahmed Elmi, this time legally. However, Elmi apparently left in 2011 and Omar got back together with Hirsi. They had their 3rd child in 2012 while she was still legally married to Elmi. In 2017, Omar legally divorced Elmi and then married Hirsi legally in 2018.
ADVERTISEMENT
Adding to the confusion is that fact that Omar filed joint tax returns with Hirsi in at least two years, 2014 and 2015, while she was still legally married to Elmi. That’s illegal under state law and it’s not clear if there were other years where she did the same. But Omar has remained completely mum about all of this, including the rumors that her marriage to Elmi was some sort of sham for immigration purposes.
ADVERTISEMENT
While some have been eager to dismiss this as nothing more than the product of the right-wing fever swamp, actual attempts to investigate the story have been inconclusive. Here’s Politifact, definitely not a right-wing outlet, talking to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune politics editor about the fact that his paper couldn’t resolve this story one way or the other, mostly because Omar and her family won’t talk about it.
ADVERTISEMENT
Earlier this week, Judicial Watch filed a House Ethics complaint alleging, among other things, marriage fraud. So while it’s probably too early to say for sure what’s happening with Omar’s current marriage based on this one report, given her unusual marital history and her determined refusal to talk about it, it could be a while before we know anything for certain.
Where's the " Rodent "....!
Sheriff Joe
DA
Glad we can agree, now doesn’t that feel good?
lol
Umm... didn't the hippies become the baby boomers? Who are now the backbone of the Republican support.
Sexually liberation in their youths, demanding deficit spending in their mature years. Ironic and gluttonous all at the same time.
Before the hippies came the beatniks, such as my hero Maynard G Krebs (played by Bob Denver before Gilligan)
"You rang?"
"Work!!!"
Paraphrasing a statement attributed to Janis Joplin - The hippies believe in making things better. The beatniks believe things aren't going to get better and say "The hell with it", stay stoned, and have a good time.
Hippies = Beatniks
Beatniks = Hippies
You know all about them Spola....
You worshiped them while serving...