If you get this enraged over temporary travel bans from nations that sponsor terrorism against the US, what are you going to do if Trump starts droning American kids with the precedent Obama set? It's a bit like the boy who cries wolf. Blowing something small out of proportion is stupid, because nobody is going to listen when the big stuff starts happening.
It's not a Muslim ban. People who say that are only burning their own credibility. Indonesia isn't banned. Bangladesh isn't banned.
Libya, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Syria. Somalia is infamous for its pirates, Libya for Benghazi, Iran for its nuclear program, do I even need to continue?
After you explain how incorrectly characterizing it as a Muslim ban isn't going to be used as terrorist propaganda. Who's actually hurting nation security here?
Characterizing it as a Muslim ban isn't wrong. It's a travel ban that will mainly effect Muslims.
It would be much easier to defend this ban as not targeting Muslims from countries that don't have the political capital to defend themselves if blanket bans like this one actually improved national security. Can you honestly make the claim that it does?
There are more people in majority Muslim Indonesia than there are in all seven of the other countries combined. Add in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and you easily have double the number of Muslims. If Trump wanted to ban Muslims, he'd ban Indonesia. Instead, he banned those seven countries because they are known to have connections with terrorists.
If a pipe bursts, temporarily turning off the water main while you figure out how to fix the problem isn't a bad strategy.
You're making a No True Scotsman argument by saying that it's not a Muslim ban because Trump didn't ban enough muslims. You're also completely ignoring the fact that Bannon very likely spent some time determining what sort of ban would and wouldn't be defensible. The use of 8 U.S. Code § 1187 wasn't by accident.
Also, your excuse about connections to terrorists needs citations because, from what I've read, these connections don't actually exist.
The study linked was about elderly women specifically.
It actually sounds pretty obvious when you state it like "the subjects that were more active were more healthy" -- we already know that should be the case generally.
I would hope so. Someone making Microsoft money actually made a decision, "yes, let's get girls in short skirts and bras dancing at our event -- that is surely a good idea that won't cause us any trouble." WTF? How oblivious can someone who actually wakes up in the morning and go to a real job possibly be? Jesus christ...
This is a response to someone who says they can't afford life and they must have a nice car.
But, you responded to a guy who was outlining a budget that he said works very well for him. He wasn't asking for your advice or complaining of a problem...
