It would seem that there's a combination of negligence on the part of the girl's parents, and pedophilia on the part of the athlete. The fact that her parents did not have a handle on the situation does not absolve the man of being a pedophile. It would seem that he was actively pursuing her, as well. So basically, he's a sexual predator.
It never ceases to amaze me how people try to defend pedophilia. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 03-04-2017).]
It never ceases to amaze me how people try to defend pedophilia. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?
I see a push toward pedophilia rights. Not to make it legal, but to make it less criminal. I am not saying Pizzagate is real. I am saying that even within the televised media, there is less evil presented to the audience. Much like many other taboos being fed to society for ratings. "What can we stick and where can we stick it to make this show take off?"
Child crimes are the most disturbing to me. Oh, I can understand how a person can get so sick. I just cannot understand how many, or any can defend a person such as this.
It seems a little odd to be talking about "how [some] people try to defend pedophilia" without providing anything more specific about the "who".
Who are the "some people"..?
As far as Senator Schemer, et al--all the people who were involved in the request that the U.S. Embassy in India reconsider on the initial visa denials and grant the visas that allowed the two men to come to the United States to be part of this snowshoes racing event--I have a few thoughts.
I find it difficult to fault the people who asked that the initial visa denials be reconsidered.
I haven't seen anything that really clarifies why the visa applications were initially denied. One of the news reports said that embassy officials were concerned that the two men did not have "strong ties" to their native country (India) and might not want to return to India upon expiration of their visitor visas.
I don't know how often this has occurred, where a visa application to visit the U.S. is denied and there is a request put forward from two or three members of Congress to have the visa denial revisited. In this case, it was the two Senators from New York, Chuck Schumer (D) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D), and possibly Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R) as well.
Can good decisions be followed by bad outcomes?
If anyone was at fault for calling for the visa denials to be reconsidered, how much were they at fault? Just a little ways at fault? More than just a "bit" at fault?
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Some of you guys really need to think about your stances on a lot of subjects. I just don't see how you can possibly defend the criminal in this situation by suggesting at least part of the responsibility of the sexual assault was on the parents.
How do you know whom is the criminal here? The investigation is not over. No trial has happened. No verdict was placed. No conviction was made. You are declaring someone to be a criminal, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, based on a report of an allegation of criminal action.
It is not a criminal I am be defending here, but the criminal justice system (ie the Constitution). We have a justice system in this country, and it isn't an Internet forum. It is a Court of Law. I am merely stating that it is not clear what happened exactly, and whom is at fault.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I haven't seen anything that really clarifies why the visa applications were initially denied. One of the news reports said that embassy officials were concerned that the two men did not have "strong ties" to their native country (India) and might not want to return to India upon expiration of their visitor visas.
The Fox article you linked seems to state this as well. Stefanik's office inquired as to why the visas were denied, and that was the reason the report states was given, saying his office performed no further action on the matter, at that point.
This is what I found for most state laws regarding sexual assault and rape. Most have 20-30 years maximum for either one. So it appears theyre usually regarded equally.
*quote;
" Sexual Assault Laws: Sexual assault is a serious criminal violation of state law. Sexual assault.... commonly known as rape..... occurs when a defendant -- intentionally and knowingly -- commits any of a number of prohibited sexual activities listed under state sexual assault law without the victim's consent. "
How do you know whom is the criminal here? The investigation is not over. No trial has happened. No verdict was placed. No conviction was made. You are declaring someone to be a criminal, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, based on a report of an allegation of criminal action.
It is not a criminal I am be defending here, but the criminal justice system (ie the Constitution). We have a justice system in this country, and it isn't an Internet forum. It is a Court of Law. I am merely stating that it is not clear what happened exactly, and whom is at fault.
If the alleged perpetrator didn't commit a crime, I think we can safely say he wouldn't be facing possible criminal prosecution if certain democrats wouldn't have twisted arms to override his initial visa denial. Correct?
And if the alleged perpetrator is eventually proven to have committed a crime, I think we can safely say the girl he allegedly sexually assaulted wouldn't have been sexually assaulted by this man if certain democrats wouldn't have twisted arms to override his initial visa denial. Correct?
Nathan S. Collier is principal and chairman of The Collier Companies, a developer, manager, and owner of multifamily housing with headquarters in Gainesville, Florida, home of the state’s flagship university, University of Florida.
Under The Collier Companies umbrella, Collier owns more than 45 properties and 10,500 apartments in Gainesville, Ocala, Orlando, Tampa, Tallahassee, and other Florida locations, as well as in Norman, Oklahoma, Champaign, Illinois, and Athens, Georgia. The Collier Companies was recently ranked by Student Housing Business magazine as the third largest—and largest privately held—student housing owner in the country. The Collier Companies also is ranked seventh on Student Housing Business’s list of the top 25 management companies of student housing properties, based on October 2012 data. Click to show
Does anyone know whether it's been a common thing for someone like Senator Schumer to reach out to one of our embassies overseas and request that a visa denial decision be revisited? Or an uncommon thing. How common? How uncommon? What would be the disadvantages of not ever allowing that such requests go forward?
Does anyone have any fresh background information about this news story? Anything more about why the visas for the two Indian snowshoe athletes were initially denied?
I wouldn't let myself be railroaded on this by anyone with a highly partisan agenda. I go back to what I posted here a few days ago, back on 03-04-2017. https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...ML/119579-2.html#p43
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-10-2017).]
If the alleged perpetrator didn't commit a crime, I think we can safely say he wouldn't be facing possible criminal prosecution if certain democrats wouldn't have twisted arms to override his initial visa denial. Correct?
And if the alleged perpetrator is eventually proven to have committed a crime, I think we can safely say the girl he allegedly sexually assaulted wouldn't have been sexually assaulted by this man if certain democrats wouldn't have twisted arms to override his initial visa denial. Correct?
Am I wrong in either one of these two statements?
Again I don't think this is the case you want to make as an example of to attempt and fuel the fear of immigrants. This guy was on a travel visa from India for a sporting event, they happen all the time and is most likely why the politicians helped get his visa reinstated. Don't worry some nutbar from another land will probably do something idiotic soon enough and you can use it to paint all, Muslims, Mexicans, Arabs, Brown people or whomever you hate with the same brush. God knows white Christians ever commit sexual assaults in the U.S. . And if you want to say that in this case keeping him out would have prevented a crime, yes you are technically right but it ignores the realities of travel visa's and immigration policies.
Again I don't think this is the case you want to make as an example of to attempt and fuel the fear of immigrants. This guy was on a travel visa from India for a sporting event, they happen all the time and is most likely why the politicians helped get his visa reinstated. Don't worry some nutbar from another land will probably do something idiotic soon enough and you can use it to paint all, Muslims, Mexicans, Arabs, Brown people or whomever you hate with the same brush. God knows white Christians ever commit sexual assaults in the U.S. . And if you want to say that in this case keeping him out would have prevented a crime, yes you are technically right but it ignores the realities of travel visa's and immigration policies.
Straight out of lib talking points 101? Wow
1. Call of racism and fear mongering and hate 2. If they didn't do it someone else would 3. Deflection back at Christianity
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: If the alleged perpetrator didn't commit a crime, I think we can safely say he wouldn't be facing possible criminal prosecution if certain democrats wouldn't have twisted arms to override his initial visa denial. Correct?
And if the alleged perpetrator is eventually proven to have committed a crime, I think we can safely say the girl he allegedly sexually assaulted wouldn't have been sexually assaulted by this man if certain democrats wouldn't have twisted arms to override his initial visa denial. Correct?
Am I wrong in either one of these two statements?
So, only criminals ever get charged with crimes, even if they don't get convicted? So you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty," one of the core tenets of the justice system in this country?
No, we cannot say either of those statements is necessarily true.
So, only criminals ever get charged with crimes, even if they don't get convicted? So you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty," one of the core tenets of the justice system in this country?
No, we cannot say either of those statements is necessarily true.
YET YOU POST IN THREAD AFTER THREAD THAT TRUMP IS GUILTY OF THIS <GUILTY OF THAT.. with a "MATTER OF FACT" temperament.. YOU ARE A HIPOCRITE of the first order.. Donnie
YET YOU POST IN THREAD AFTER THREAD THAT TRUMP IS GUILTY OF THIS <GUILTY OF THAT.. with a "MATTER OF FACT" temperament.. YOU ARE A HIPOCRITE of the first order.. Donnie
careful before you have a stroke ruckus.
I have no idea what you are talking about. No, I post "there is evidence that Trump is guilty of this." You're religious fervor for him leads you to read things incorrectly with your eyes of red. As far as sexual assault though, he admitted it on tape. So yeah, pretty certain he is guilty of it.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: YET YOU POST IN THREAD AFTER THREAD THAT TRUMP IS GUILTY OF THIS <GUILTY OF THAT.. with a "MATTER OF FACT" temperament.. YOU ARE A HIPOCRITE of the first order.. Donnie
I have some familiarity with the kinds of posts that have been coming from Dobey, and what he has been saying in most of these instances is that Trump is "guilty" in the sense of Trump having unrealistic perceptions about certain issues, or Trump having proposed governmental solutions to specific problems that are not the best solutions, or can be expected to be counterproductive and backfire in ways that would exacerbate problems instead of fixing problems... that kind of "guilty".
In other instances, Dobey has said (in so many words, if not precisely the words) that Congress or the Department of Justice or the Judicial (courts) system should be pushing back agains Trump in ways that they are not, or more than they already are, in terms of reigning in what Dobey (and others) perceive as Trump's conflicts of interest in terms of his family and business ties, vs. his responsibilities as President of the United States.
But these other "Dobey posts" are not of a kind that can logically be equated with the idea that because this snowshoe athlete from India has been charged with criminal violations, we should already consider him guilty as charged, before he's even been tried in a court of law.
Apples and Oranges.
Surely you wouldn't want to be comparing Apples with Oranges, Mr. Furgal?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-10-2017).]
I have some familiarity with the kinds of posts that have been coming from Dobey, and what he has been saying in most of these instances is that Trump is "guilty" in the sense of Trump having unrealistic perceptions about certain issues, or Trump having proposed governmental solutions to specific problems that are not the best solutions, or can be expected to be counterproductive and backfire in ways that would exacerbate problems instead of fixing problems... that kind of "guilty".
That's not quite what this says:
quote
Originally posted by dobey:
No, I post "there is evidence that Trump is guilty of this."
OK. Dobey said that there is "evidence". Evidence that Trump has been culpable or is currently involved in some kind of misconduct that could be charged against him in a court of law.
It could be a charge(s) of impeachment, that would be voted on and passed by the House of Representatives, after which the Senate would become a court of law that would try the President on the charges of the impeachment.
Or in this most recent instance, I have seen legal "talking heads" on TV saying that in theory, Obama could bring charges of libel or defamation against President Trump, and argue a civil suit (for judgement and damages) that President Trump used Twitter to publicize very specific accusations of "wire tapping" in a reckless and dishonest way, knowing full well that he (Trump) did not have knowledge of any specific evidence to support these allegations of a felony crime by Obama during Obama's last months as President.
I don't think that Dobey would follow any of this up by saying that President Trump is therefore "guilty as charge", without first having Due Process--without President Trump having his "day in court". (Do you?) And that is where E.Furgal comes up short. Because that is what Dobey would have to say, in order to make E.Furgal's "HYPOCRITE" thing about Dobey a real thing.
E.Furgal is trying to set up equivalences here between the way that Dobey is thinking on some of the "Trump" threads, and the way that Dobey is thinking on THIS thread, but these equivalences do not "equate". They are False equivalences. Or more charitably, Inaccurate equivalences.
Is there another question?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-10-2017).]
I have no idea what you are talking about. No, I post "there is evidence that Trump is guilty of this." You're religious fervor for him leads you to read things incorrectly with your eyes of red. As far as sexual assault though, he admitted it on tape. So yeah, pretty certain he is guilty of it.
you posted above... AND I QUOTE""So, only criminals ever get charged with crimes, even if they don't get convicted? So you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty," one of the core tenets of the justice system in this country?"" has anything you CLAIM TRUMP IS GUILTY OF, BEEN FOUND THAT WAY IN A TRIAL.. or a congressional hearing??????? nope.. yet you claim he is guilty..
HIPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 03-10-2017).]
you posted above... AND I QUOTE""So, only criminals ever get charged with crimes, even if they don't get convicted? So you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty," one of the core tenets of the justice system in this country?"" has anything you CLAIM TRUMP IS GUILTY OF, BEEN FOUND THAT WAY IN A TRIAL.. or a congressional hearing??????? nope.. yet you claim he is guilty..
HIPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you illiterate? Do you not know what a question is? Do you even know what the word hypocrite means?
I didn't claim Trump was definitely guilty. As I said, again, I pointed at evidence which suggests he is guilty. His behavior also continually is that of someone who is guilty. He has ADMITTED ON TAPE that he has COMMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT. One doesn't need a court to know one is guilty of something, when they've openly admitted it.
Are you illiterate? Do you not know what a question is? Do you even know what the word hypocrite means?
I didn't claim Trump was definitely guilty. As I said, again, I pointed at evidence which suggests he is guilty. His behavior also continually is that of someone who is guilty. He has ADMITTED ON TAPE that he has COMMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT. One doesn't need a court to know one is guilty of something, when they've openly admitted it.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: back petal much.. HIPOCRITE
No. I stated what I stated, and you cannot prove otherwise. You can apply your own ignorant far right bias to try and twist what I said to fit your narrative, but then that just makes you a liar. Be we already know your full of crap with all the bs you spew on here.
Trump himself claimed his own guilt in sexual assault on tape. I merely stated that. I have posted lots of evidence. You have posted nothing but attacks.
Again I don't think this is the case you want to make as an example of to attempt and fuel the fear of immigrants. This guy was on a travel visa from India for a sporting event, they happen all the time and is most likely why the politicians helped get his visa reinstated. Don't worry some nutbar from another land will probably do something idiotic soon enough and you can use it to paint all, Muslims, Mexicans, Arabs, Brown people or whomever you hate with the same brush. God knows white Christians ever commit sexual assaults in the U.S. . And if you want to say that in this case keeping him out would have prevented a crime, yes you are technically right but it ignores the realities of travel visa's and immigration policies.
Tread carefully with your accusations, newf. You don't know what's in my heart and thus you aren't qualified to accuse me of hating someone because of their race, religion, sex, creed, whatever. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't project your "hate" onto me in the future. So take your Saul Alinsky tactics elsewhere.
That being said, I just want to know why are we twisting arms to get "immigrants" into this country when so many citizens who already live here need help? How many homeless live under bridges in this country who can't afford even 1 full meal a day or shelter are ignored by the very politicians who twist arms to get every immigrant and refugee they can find a green card and social program benefits? Why don't we worry about the American Citizens who already live here first before worrying about people from other countries? What's wrong with that?
Tread carefully with your accusations, newf. You don't know what's in my heart and thus you aren't qualified to accuse me of hating someone because of their race, religion, sex, creed, whatever. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't project your "hate" onto me in the future. So take your Saul Alinsky tactics elsewhere.
That being said, I just want to know why are we twisting arms to get "immigrants" into this country when so many citizens who already live here need help? How many homeless live under bridges in this country who can't afford even 1 full meal a day or shelter are ignored by the very politicians who twist arms to get every immigrant and refugee they can find a green card and social program benefits? Why don't we worry about the American Citizens who already live here first before worrying about people from other countries? What's wrong with that?
WHY , only one reason VOTES.. More useful than the homeless here, as they won't vote and if they do it won't be for the party that has lied to them for decades.
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 03-11-2017).]
OK, AFTER I set this all up, I realized that newf had already made exactly the same point. It stays, with the HIDE format tags. It's a good summary for anyone who comes to this thread, especially if they do not [want to] read or review [any of] this thread back to the very first post.
I have posted in this thread before--several times--but it just "hit" me.
Why was this thread set up with the title (subject field) of "Immigrant denied visa; Sen Schumer twists arms to grant entry; immigrant rapes child."..?
Immigrant? I am looking at two news reports about this, one from March 1, the other from March 3, and unless I am HUGELY missing or misinterpreting something(??), the two men from India that are at the center of this story (one of them now charged with sexual misconduct with a 12-year old local girl) were admitted to the United States as Visitors--not Immigrants.
quote
Hussain and Khan had planned to return home Thursday.
"Thursday" was March 2.
Why is E.Furgal talking about immigrants and voter-related issues when these two men from India were apparently admitted on one of the Non-Immigrant or "Visitor" categories of visa to participate in a snowshoe race and some of the activities surrounding this one local event? They were here in the United States for just a few days or something like that--just long enough to cover the period for this snowshoe racing event--and then they were expected to fly back to India.
quote
[Senator] Schumer’s office told Fox News he often intervenes to facilitate international competition. “As we often do when local communities ask for help, at the request of Saranac Lake, we helped to navigate the visa process so these athletes could compete at a local competition."
Tread carefully with your accusations, newf. You don't know what's in my heart and thus you aren't qualified to accuse me of hating someone because of their race, religion, sex, creed, whatever. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't project your "hate" onto me in the future. So take your Saul Alinsky tactics elsewhere.
That being said, I just want to know why are we twisting arms to get "immigrants" into this country when so many citizens who already live here need help? How many homeless live under bridges in this country who can't afford even 1 full meal a day or shelter are ignored by the very politicians who twist arms to get every immigrant and refugee they can find a green card and social program benefits? Why don't we worry about the American Citizens who already live here first before worrying about people from other countries? What's wrong with that?
The person this post is about IS NOT AN IMMIGRANT. HE IS A VISITOR. You don't think foreign athletes should be allowed to VISIT the US to compete in events for their sport? We should not host any events with foreign players competing then? That would be a huge loss of money for the cities/counties/states which host the events, as well as the local businesses where the events are hosted. A nice chunk of that also makes it up to Federal level from taxes. Where will the extra money come from to make up for that, and "take care of our own" exactly?
The problem I see with your posts, is that you're overreacting to a story that has very little information on what actually took place. You are using an alleged crime to advance the idea that foreigners are criminals/terrorists/etc... You don't know the details of what was said or done for these two athletes to have their visas granted. You don't know that the allegations are true. You don't know that had these two individuals not been allowed in, that the same allegations would not have been placed against another athlete at the competition. You are using fear of foreigners and crimes, to advance your own narrative. You want the rest of us to be afraid of these foreigners. That is exactly what hate is. That is exactly what terrorism is.
If the exact same allegations were against a white US citizen, this thread wouldn't even exist. You would have never read the story. Even if you had, you likely wouldn't have started a thread here, because it wouldn't have served your narrative. Every day in this country, women and children are sexually assaulted.
Heck, search for "Stanford" in PFF and you get nothing, but search for "rape" and you get a whole lot of threads spreading the fear of Muslims. Why is that? Where was the outrage at Brock Turner?
Why was this thread set up with the title (subject field) of "Immigrant denied visa; Sen Schumer twists arms to grant entry; immigrant rapes child."..?
Immigrant? I am looking at two news reports about this, one from March 1, the other from March 3, and unless I am HUGELY missing or misinterpreting something(??), the two men from India that are at the center of this story (one of them now charged with sexual misconduct with a 12-year old local girl) were admitted to the United States as Visitors--not Immigrants.
LEARN TO READ I posted about this back on page 1...
As for those few of you who criticized the wording of my thread title, complain to Cliff for not allowing more characters to be used for titles on this forum. I did have to truncate my thread title and use less accurate words than I wanted to accurately describe the thread topic.
The term "immigrant" wasn't my first choice. But "visitor from another country" would not fit in the thread title given the current allotment of thread title characters.
That being said, some reports that were quoted in this very thread state one of the possible reasons why the state dept. denied their visas was because they were afraid they wouldn't leave once they got into the US. So if that's true, wouldn't the term "immigrant" fit better?
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 03-11-2017).]
The person this post is about IS NOT AN IMMIGRANT. HE IS A VISITOR.
Apparently you can't read either. (see my post above this one)
quote
You don't think foreign athletes should be allowed to VISIT the US to compete in events for their sport? We should not host any events with foreign players competing then?
I never said that. All I said is we shouldn't be twisting the arms of state department officials to get them to override their own decisions for a certain political agenda. And in this case, if the criminal allegations are true, a young American girl suffered for that arm twisting.
quote
That would be a huge loss of money for the cities/counties/states which host the events, as well as the local businesses where the events are hosted. A nice chunk of that also makes it up to Federal level from taxes. Where will the extra money come from to make up for that, and "take care of our own" exactly?
Well since I never said we should ban foreign athletes from legally entering the US to participate in sporting events on our soil, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
quote
The problem I see with your posts, is that you're overreacting to a story that has very little information on what actually took place. You are using an alleged crime to advance the idea that foreigners are criminals/terrorists/etc... You don't know the details of what was said or done for these two athletes to have their visas granted. You don't know that the allegations are true. You don't know that had these two individuals not been allowed in, that the same allegations would not have been placed against another athlete at the competition. You are using fear of foreigners and crimes, to advance your own narrative. You want the rest of us to be afraid of these foreigners. That is exactly what hate is. That is exactly what terrorism is.
Did my thread title say "all foreigners are criminals/terrorists/etc"?
Have I ever posted anything on this forum, title or otherwise, where I accused all foreigners of being criminals or terrorists?
quote
If the exact same allegations were against a white US citizen, this thread wouldn't even exist. You would have never read the story. Even if you had, you likely wouldn't have started a thread here, because it wouldn't have served your narrative. Every day in this country, women and children are sexually assaulted.
The funny thing about your statement is this thread isn't only about the "visitor" who allegedly raped a young girl...It is also about the white US citizens (namely - democrat politicians) who twisted the arms of state department officials to get the alleged rapist into this country after he was initially denied entry. So this thread topic has just as much to do with "white US citizens" as it does with "visitors" from another country. And to be quite honest, if the rape allegations are true, then I would be more upset with the idiots who forced the state dept. to import the rapist in the first place.
I wouldn't be using such descriptions--"Senator (Chuck) Schumer twisted the arms of the people who make the visa decisions", "Schumer pulled the strings...", "Schumer forced the visa administrators", etc.
I wouldn't do that unless I had more information about how this process works (of requesting that a visa denial be revisited), both in general, and specifically in terms of Senator Schumer's correspondence or phone calls with the embassy officials in India.
I am not saying that these descriptions are false or misleading. I just don't know. I have only seen the two news reports that I have already referenced, and these two reports do not provide that kind of information. The Fox News report from March 3 was published under the banner "Schumer pulled visa strings for Indian athlete now accused of child sex abuse", but within the report itself, there is nothing to distinguish what happened from some other banner that could have been used, such as "Schumer's office expedited visit of Indian athlete..." or "Visa review request for accused Indian athlete originated from Schumer's office".
What anyone needs to think about, when they put the Fox News banner side by side with the text of the Fox News report is this:
quote
Is this a politicized news report banner? Is Fox News using a political "spin" in the wording of the news report banner that is not confirmed by the details of the report?
For me, the answers are "Yes" and "Yes."
With all due respect, Mr. "Darth"--and I really do not mean that as any kind of sarcasm--I think that you are reaching for conclusions or judgements, without having the kind of background information and "case specifics" that anyone would need to support any conclusions are judgements.
I doubt that the information that is needed--background information about the visa admissions process (in general), and the specifics of exactly what happened in this one case--is going to reach the eyes of anyone who is just waiting for additional reports to emerge in the media. Someone would have to take this on in the manner of an investigative reporter and--to boil it down to a single word--"Dig." Or "Drill." As in "Drill down into it." It might even require FOIA requests to get this kind of information.
I apologize for forgetting what I had already read some days ago, about how "Immigrant" was used in the forum subject line.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-11-2017).]
I wouldn't be using such descriptions--"Senator (Chuck) Schumer twisted the arms of the people who make the visa decisions", "Schumer pulled the strings...", "Schumer forced the visa administrators", etc.
I wouldn't do that unless I had more information about how this process works (of requesting that a visa denial be revisited), both in general, and specifically in terms of Senator Schumer's correspondence or phone calls with the embassy officials in India.
I am not saying that these descriptions are false or misleading. I just don't know. I have only seen the two news reports that I have already referenced, and these two reports do not provide that kind of information. The Fox News report from March 3 was published under the banner "Schumer pulled visa strings for Indian athlete now accused of child sex abuse", but within the report itself, there is nothing to distinguish what happened from some other banner that could have been used, such as "Schumer's office expedited visit of Indian athlete..." or "Visa review request for accused Indian athlete originated from Schumer's office".
What anyone needs to think about, when they put the Fox News banner side by side with the text of the Fox News report is this:
Is this a politicized news report banner? Is Fox News using a political "spin" in the wording of the news report banner that is not confirmed by the details of the report?
For me, the answers are "Yes" and "Yes."
With all due respect, Mr. "Darth"--and I really do not mean that as any kind of sarcasm--I think that you are reaching for conclusions or judgements, without having the kind of background information and "case specifics" that anyone would need to support any conclusions are judgements.
I doubt that the information that is needed--background information about the visa admissions process (in general), and the specifics of exactly what happened in this one case--is going to reach the eyes of anyone who is just waiting for additional reports to emerge in the media. Someone would have to take this on in the manner of an investigative reporter and--to boil it down to a single word--"Dig." Or "Drill." As in "Drill down into it." It might even require FOIA requests to get this kind of information.
I apologize for forgetting what I had already read some days ago, about how "Immigrant" was used in the forum subject line.
The original news report I quoted was not from Fox News. It was written by the AP and reposted on syracuse.com, which is where I found it. So if you want to complain about it being fake news, false reporting, or inconsistencies in their story, I would direct you to go to them and complain.
As far as the thread title is concerned, I've already discussed that. You don't like the words I used? Then start your own thread about this same news story using your words. But this is my thread and that's the title it got. Too bad if some of you guys got sand in your vaginas over it, but that's not my problem.
This is an internet forum, not a court of law. I found a news story and I wrote an opinion piece about the content of that story. I don't need to do a bunch of meaningless research into how visas get approved or denied to post an opinion piece about democrats twisting arms to override state department decisions - YOU can do that if you want to.
I can make any judgements I want based on my beliefs and opinions. After all, you do the exact same thing, so why can't I?
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 03-11-2017).]
I am not questioning your right to have these opinions, or your right to draw what I perceive as specific conclusions or judgements based on these news reports.
I only said that I don't agree with you about what to "make" of these news reports.
It's about "meaning" or "significance", and even after reading about your thoughts on this story--your "process"--I am not on the "same page" with you about what this all means.
I think you are looking for confirmation, or agreement. It seems to me that you are almost "hungry" for it. And it may come, if more Replies are added onto this thread. But unless you (or someone else) were to update this reporting with facts and accounts that I have not already read, that confirmation isn't going to come from me.
OK..?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-11-2017).]
.....You don't think foreign athletes should be allowed to VISIT the US to compete in events for their sport? We should not host any events with foreign players competing then? That would be a huge loss of money for the cities/counties/states which host the events, as well as the local businesses where the events are hosted. A nice chunk of that also makes it up to Federal level from taxes. Where will the extra money come from to make up for that, and "take care of our own" exactly
Because Indian snow shoe racers are so vital to the U.S. economy.....
or not:
"... chauffeured here by Porcupine Inn owner Fred Mazzeo, who gave them complimentary lodging. Some restaurants offered them free meals. Local residents gave generously to a crowdfunding campaign, started by Rabideau, that raised more than $1,600 to cover some of their travel expenses."
Darth, you keep saying "twisted the arms of" because you are promoting fear. Those are words you use to promote the idea that these two guys should have been feared.
Read the news. The representatives were asked to intervene, by those whom they represent. If you have a problem with representatives doing the job they were elected to do, of representing their people, in such situations, then surely you don't think the people in upstate NY deserve any representation in other matters either. Or at least, not ones which you disagree with. No?
You are trying to blame these representatives, for the ALLEGATIONS against foreign VISITORS, with absolutely no evidence as to who did what. You are taking an allegation of a crime, against one of the visitors, and using it for your own narrative of denying entry to foreigners. This thread isn't about white people committing these same crimes. The first post and title of this thread are very clear. You don't understand the situation, and you are using it to push your hatred of ideals different to your own, and in particular "Democrats." You want to blame Democrats for the world's problems. It's very clear in the words you choose in your posts on this thread.
But yet, you don't seem to get upset by CITIZENS who commit these same crimes, nor when they have been ALLEGED to have done so. Where is your outrage at these citizens?
Stop using foreign visitors who were only to be here for two days for an athletic event, and whom one of which was ALLEGED to have committed such crimes, to spout your hatred of Democrats, liberals, or whatever other un-clever name you wish to come up with and call them.
EDIT: And yes, I know what you said about the title. But in the posts and replies, you keep saying "immigrants" when we're talking about these visitors. So I must keep correcting that as long as it continues to happen in posts I reply to, to try and make it absolutely clear that these two people were not immigrants.
[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 03-12-2017).]
Politician in general and specifically Schumer and Obama (both democrats) accept no responsibility when they release criminals into society who then go on to commit crimes.
Darth, you keep saying "twisted the arms of" because you are promoting fear. Those are words you use to promote the idea that these two guys should have been feared.
Read the news. The representatives were asked to intervene, by those whom they represent. If you have a problem with representatives doing the job they were elected to do, of representing their people, in such situations, then surely you don't think the people in upstate NY deserve any representation in other matters either. Or at least, not ones which you disagree with. No?
If the politicians weren't "twisting the arms" of state department officials to get them to change their mind on the visas, what would you call it then? "Strongly influenced", perhaps?
I wouldn't be surprised if some leftist activists contacted their liberal representative and asked for an intervention on this issue. It happens all the time. It still doesn't mean the decision to "force" the state department to grant entry to these two "visitors" was the right one. And if the rape allegations turn out to be true, then can't we say forcing the state dept. to grant the visas was the wrong decision?
quote
You are trying to blame these representatives, for the ALLEGATIONS against foreign VISITORS, with absolutely no evidence as to who did what. You are taking an allegation of a crime, against one of the visitors, and using it for your own narrative of denying entry to foreigners. This thread isn't about white people committing these same crimes. The first post and title of this thread are very clear. You don't understand the situation, and you are using it to push your hatred of ideals different to your own, and in particular "Democrats." You want to blame Democrats for the world's problems. It's very clear in the words you choose in your posts on this thread.
Again, you can drop the hate label on me because it doesn't fit. You may see hate in everyone that disagrees with you because of your fascist attitude, but that doesn't mean people who disagree with you are hateful. It also doesn't mean that anyone that disagrees with you is racist, sexist, or a bigot.
It seems to me that the people who are always trying to level charges of racism, sexism, bigotry, and hate in others - are guilty of it themselves. I actually don't hate democrats or liberals. Instead, I feel sorry for them because it is a proven fact that liberalism IS a mental disorder. I just wish people like you would get the help you so desperately need.
quote
But yet, you don't seem to get upset by CITIZENS who commit these same crimes, nor when they have been ALLEGED to have done so. Where is your outrage at these citizens?
As a law-abiding citizen myself, I get upset when my fellow American citizens commit crimes. I've even posted about it in other threads on this forum. But I don't think Cliff has enough bandwidth for me to post about EVERY crime every citizen commits. And quite frankly, I don't have enough time to devote to doing that - nobody does. So I have to pick and choose what I post about on this forum. That's not unreasonable, and I think anyone else in their right mind would agree with me on that.
quote
Stop using foreign visitors who were only to be here for two days for an athletic event, and whom one of which was ALLEGED to have committed such crimes, to spout your hatred of Democrats, liberals, or whatever other un-clever name you wish to come up with and call them.
You spout your hatred of Republicans, Conservatives, and whatever other rude names you come up with to call them by all the time. But yet, it sounds like you are trying to say that nobody else on this forum who has a different political opinion than you is allowed to do the same thing. Be careful, dobey, your inner fascist is showing.
quote
EDIT: And yes, I know what you said about the title. But in the posts and replies, you keep saying "immigrants" when we're talking about these visitors. So I must keep correcting that as long as it continues to happen in posts I reply to, to try and make it absolutely clear that these two people were not immigrants.
Didn't I read somewhere in this thread that one of the reasons why the state department might have initially denied the visas of these "visitors" was because they feared those "visitors" wouldn't return to their home country once they got in here? If that's true, wouldn't the term "immigrants" be a more proper descriptor of these two?
I wouldn't be surprised if some leftist activists contacted their liberal representative and asked for an intervention on this issue. It happens all the time. It still doesn't mean the decision to "force" the state department to grant entry to these two "visitors" was the right one. And if the rape allegations turn out to be true, then can't we say forcing the state dept. to grant the visas was the wrong decision?
Based on what I believe that you actually know about this case, we should not be referring to what happened as "forcing the State Department to grant the visas." Ultimately, it was a decision process that remained within the State Department itself. If there actually were some egregious irregularity about these two Visitor visas that were granted to the two men from India, maybe--if someone in the State Department feels strongly enough about it--there will be a "Whistle Blower" or some other pushback from the State Department coming out in the national news reports. But that's just speculative, at this point.
I wouldn't be surprised if not one of the people involved in the process that led to the State Department granting the two Visitor visas actually fits most of "our" ideas of what constitutes a "leftist activist". But that could be an argument about "semantics".
The town mayor and some of the town's business owners and operators were all in on the public expression of support for having these two snowshoe athletes from India granted Visitor visas--all of them "in" on the lobbying for these Visitors that went upwards to the two U.S. Senators from New York state and then overseas to the U.S. embassy in India, which ultimately granted the visas.
quote
Didn't I read somewhere in this thread that one of the reasons why the state department might have initially denied the visas of these "visitors" was because they feared those "visitors" wouldn't return to their home country once they got in here? If that's true, wouldn't the term "immigrants" be a more proper descriptor of these two?
No. It would not. The proper descriptor is "Visitors".
I see Darth Fiero "doubling down" here on his original misconceptions and illogical conclusions--trying to exploit this case where the two U.S. Senators from New York and a cadre of local people including a small town mayor were all involved in a process that resulted in one of our U.S. embassies in India reconsidering on an initial denial of (two) Visitor visas.
It's like watching someone trying to squeeze water from a paving stone. (I would say"rock", but I do not want to allow the possibility of an underground aquifer or something like that )
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-13-2017).]
P.S. About the forum thread title that was used here...
I did not see "rape" in either of the two news reports that I read about this case. Charges of fondling or inappropriate touching of an underage girl with sexual connotations--but not "rape". Lines are being blurred, because sentiment is overriding reason.
The forum thread title here has been politicized--a "spin" job. As was the banner that Fox News used to present their news report on March 3:
quote
Schumer pulled visa strings for Indian athlete now accused of child sex abuse
The forum thread title for this discussion has an even higher angular velocity or "spin" rate than the Fox News banner.
I know, the forum title or subject field has a rather "limited" number of characters. Not even as many characters as a Twitter message. I suggest that "folks" are most often well served to take their time and make this part of an Original Post or new discussion thread "good from the get-go."
My experience has been that this effort often adds to the clarity of my thinking... Why do I want to start a new thread? Should I go through with it? Or having bogged down when I try to get the thread title "right", sometimes that is a signal from my own mind that I really don't want to complete the process and Submit on it.
Finally, a pragmatic observation. After a few Reply posts are part of a discussion thread, it becomes less and less likely that the next person is going to review the entire thread from the very first word. So, a misleading thread title is--well, kind of like the oft-quoted line from Hamlet--"'The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interrèd with their bones." It's like a hangover after a night of too many cocktails. It's hard to dispel. And once submitted, it cannot be changed. (Unless that is done very quickly, before the first Reply.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-13-2017).]
"You can drop the hate label on me, because it doesn't fit." -- every hateful person ever
Your hate is clear in your words, Darth. If you haven't hate, then I suggest you take more time to think about the words you use.
No, I would not call it arm twisting, because you have no idea what was actually said or discussed. As stated in the report, Saranac asked their representatives to do their job in representing them, and help with getting the visas approved. They did that. You don't know the details of how it was done. To say "twisted the arms" is aggrandizing the situation to fit your personal narrative.
Is there some point to this thread other than to foster fear of "immigrants" and hate of Democrats? Because all you're doing is ranting about both, and seem to be expecting everyone else to do the same (because this is a heavily right wing occupied forum of course).
If you have evidence of the details of the conversation between the representatives offices and the State Dept., then please enlighten us all. I'm sure the journalists following the story and reporting on it would love to know those details too. For all you know, they could have simply reassured State that the visitors would have limited mobility around the sporting event only and the Saranac officials sponsoring them would ensure they would be sent off at the airport as scheduled. You are assuming some sort of greater political pressure, or worse, by using the colloquialism of "arm twisting."
The wording suits your narrative of keeping visitors out and hating liberals/Democrats, but it does not necessarily fit the unknown details of what actually happened. Like so many other threads in T/OT here, it is an overly dramatic interpretation, with the sole goal of wanting people to agree with your sentiment and rant about their hate of "immigrants" and "liberals" too. I see no other purpose for this thread, given the wording you chose in the OP and title, and you continue to choose in your posts when you reply with broken up quoting that makes it incredibly painful to actually reply to you (a misfeature of the forum of course, but alas).
I understand your original post just fine. It shows that the liberals who want NO borders or restrictions can and will allow people like this into the country. Is it scare tactics...yes...as it should be. In any case whether its rape, assault or abuse ... its all equally deplorable for a child or anyone else. Liberals want to accept everyone as kind and loving and looking for a good life, when in reality thats not always the case...no matter what liberals like doobey want to say about it. In this case, the applicant was initially declined for a reason, and liberals let him bypass the system. They are just as responsible as the athlete was to me. They all should go to jail...from the athlete to the congressman.
. And if you want to say that in this case keeping him out would have prevented a crime, yes you are technically right but it ignores the realities of travel visa's and immigration policies.
)
