WWTBAM Bored

It's the Steve Miller ban.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-other ... 02120.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-other ... 02120.html

Well, look who's back. Coming back to us to disseminate some more #FAKE NEWS, as if Bob and BJ aren't spreading enough.

Here's the real story, first hand. But of course, he is lying for 2 reasons: He is connected with President Trump and it's Fox News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2lDgI7rutY

I prefer Stephanie Miller: http://www.stephaniemiller.com/

There are 1.4 billion Muslims unaffected by this moratorium. Over 1 billion from 43 different Muslim majority countries.

He's right. Its not a Muslim ban. Its not even a ban, but certainly not targeting Muslims for being Muslim.

BackInTex wrote:He's right. Its not a Muslim ban. Its not even a ban, but certainly not targeting Muslims for being Muslim.

President Trump disagrees with you.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 3825666051

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-other ... 02120.html

Well, look who's back. Coming back to us to disseminate some more #FAKE NEWS, as if Bob and BJ aren't spreading enough.

Here's the real story, first hand. But of course, he is lying for 2 reasons: He is connected with President Trump and it's Fox News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2lDgI7rutY

The world according to Flock.

If it doesn't say "Fox," it's fake.

If it doesn't say "Breitbart," it's bogus.

Some people call him Maurice.

The order is illegal. Congress has expressly forbidden denial of visas solely on the basis of nationality. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). The order does exactly that. If Donnie wants the United States to return to the days of the Chinese Exclusion Act, he needs Congressional approval. He doesn't have it and I'm pretty sure he won't get it.

It's also unconstitutional. The order clearly imposes a religious test for admissibility, thereby violating the First Amendment.

Leaving aside the legalities, it's cruel, it's unjust, it's wrong, and it makes America less safe. It did, however, inspire me to make my first-ever contribution to the American Civil Liberties Union. Based on news reports, I'm probably not the only one who can say that. --Bob

Please refresh my memory.

Who was it that kept saying that Obama was acting unconstitutionally by issuing all those executive orders?

A case that got a lot of attention around here is a family of Syrians that were joining relatives in Allentown, Pa. Unfortunately, when they landed at PHL they were sent right back to Damascus. (At most other airports, Syrians were detained but not flown back.) Another difference is that they're Orthodox Christian. Their relatives voted for Trump. I hope procedures are in place soon so families like them can come here again. Their son is worried he'll be drafted when he graduates from high school in a few months.

silverscreenselect wrote:Please refresh my memory.

Who was it that kept saying that Obama was acting unconstitutionally by issuing all those executive orders?

That would have been me. And I chastised those of you who were applauding him for doing so. I warned that you might love it when someone you agree with decides to bypass Congress and uses a pen and a phone to do things when Congress won't act, but you won't love it very much when someone you don't agree with does it. You can thank President Obama for setting the precedent. I was hoping Trump would be advised not to do what Obama did, but he is acting like a king so far. And though he is being protested by people like you for his choice of toilet paper for the White House Bathroom and the bobs are keeping us abreast of all the #FAKE NEWS, almost no one is talking about his 'ruling' by Executive Order. We are not a monarchy.

Ronald Reagan, if he was doing these things, would have at least gotten on TV and explained what he was doing and why he was doing it, if not going through Congress. We get juvenile tweets as explanation. These kinds of things need and deserve some conversation and consensus before being enacted by fiat [Even if I agree with them].

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-other ... 02120.html

Well, look who's back. Coming back to us to disseminate some more #FAKE NEWS, as if Bob and BJ aren't spreading enough.

Here's the real story, first hand. But of course, he is lying for 2 reasons: He is connected with President Trump and it's Fox News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2lDgI7rutY

The world according to Flock.

If it doesn't say "Fox," it's fake.

If it doesn't say "Breitbart," it's bogus.

Um, this is a direct interview with the subject in question. Are you calling him a liar?
In your bubble, there is no room for any opinion but your own, and facts are 'trumped' by your opinion.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:In your bubble, there is no room for any opinion but your own, and facts are 'trumped' by your opinion.

Says Flock, a man who has a documented history on the Bored of rejecting the truth because the truth doesn't fluff his ego or satisfy his ignorant baseless prejudices.

Projection: Not just for movie theaters.

Pastor Fireball wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:In your bubble, there is no room for any opinion but your own, and facts are 'trumped' by your opinion.

Says Flock, a man who has a documented history on the Bored of rejecting the truth because the truth doesn't fluff his ego or satisfy his ignorant baseless prejudices.

Projection: Not just for movie theaters.

OK, I'll bite, even though I wasn't talking to you. You ignored the fact that I posted a video of Mr. Miller himself, in person and first hand, answering the third party, unattributed #FAKE NEWS that travis needed to share with us and decided to join SSS and attack me personally. Please enlighten me where I have ever rejected the truth (the real truth, not some convoluted interpretation of it) in anything and tell me all about my ignorant prejudices. Please include specific examples, try not rely on epithets and make sure it is in correct context. I tend to be sarcastic sometimes.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Please enlighten me where I have ever rejected the truth.

Offhand, I'd say that if we went back to the thread about Trump mocking the disabled reporter, we'd find 20 or 30 instances of you rejecting the truth.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Please enlighten me where I have ever rejected the truth.

Offhand, I'd say that if we went back to the thread about Trump mocking the disabled reporter, we'd find 20 or 30 instances of you rejecting the truth.

I must admit something here. On that thread, I consciously decided to use the tactics of the left and the left leaning media as an experiment. I created juvenile slogans. I took people's words out of context and used it for my own purposes. I created negative 'brands' for people based on convoluted interpretations of what they said, rather than what I knew they meant. I thought I was being clever, but after awhile, it just made me feel very dirty and I had to stop.
I apologize to you, SSS, for doing that, and everyone else I deliberately offended on that thread.

Some people call him the space cowboy.

On Tuesday, Judge Birrotte of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a nationwide temporary restraining order broadly preventing the government from interfering with affected people travelling here on valid immigrant visas. So we're about to find out whether the federal government will still obey a valid court order. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:On Tuesday, Judge Birrotte of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a nationwide temporary restraining order broadly preventing the government from interfering with affected people travelling here on valid immigrant visas. So we're about to find out whether the federal government will still obey a valid court order. --Bob

No, we will find out if that judge has the authority and if it is a valid order. I think not.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:On Tuesday, Judge Birrotte of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a nationwide temporary restraining order broadly preventing the government from interfering with affected people travelling here on valid immigrant visas. So we're about to find out whether the federal government will still obey a valid court order. --Bob

No, we will find out if that judge has the authority and if it is a valid order. I think not.

For the moment it doesn't matter. It is not a defense to contempt of a federal court's order that the order was legally erroneous and should not have been issued. (The rule is different for some state courts, including those of California.) And a federal TRO is not an appealable order (again, some states, including California, have a different rule), so there's very little immediate recourse. Whether it's right or wrong, the government is legally obligated to obey Judge Birotte's order. Given Donny's open hostility to the courts, I expect the federal courts to enforce their orders quite vigorously. We've already seen Judge Brinkema order the United States Marshal Service enforce her order.

Assuming Judge Pirotte issues a preliminary injunction that tracks his TRO, that preliminary injunction will be an appealable order. That's when we'll find out whether the Ninth Circuit agrees with you or whether, instead, it agrees with the five federal judges across the country who have found Donny's ban to be illegal.

Donny has two choices. He can have his government abide by court orders even if he disagrees with them. Or he can declare his open defiance of the rule of law. I really hope he chooses to obey the courts. Because otherwise we'll have a constitutional crisis on our hands much faster than I anticipated. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:On Tuesday, Judge Birrotte of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a nationwide temporary restraining order broadly preventing the government from interfering with affected people travelling here on valid immigrant visas. So we're about to find out whether the federal government will still obey a valid court order. --Bob

No, we will find out if that judge has the authority and if it is a valid order. I think not.

For the moment it doesn't matter. It is not a defense to contempt of a federal court's order that the order was legally erroneous and should not have been issued. (The rule is different for some state courts, including those of California.) And a federal TRO is not an appealable order (again, some states, including California, have a different rule), so there's very little immediate recourse. Whether it's right or wrong, the government is legally obligated to obey Judge Birotte's order. Given Donny's open hostility to the courts, I expect the federal courts to enforce their orders quite vigorously. We've already seen Judge Brinkema order the United States Marshal Service enforce her order.

Assuming Judge Pirotte issues a preliminary injunction that tracks his TRO, that preliminary injunction will be an appealable order. That's when we'll find out whether the Ninth Circuit agrees with you or whether, instead, it agrees with the five federal judges across the country who have found Donny's ban to be illegal.

Donny has two choices. He can have his government abide by court orders even if he disagrees with them. Or he can declare his open defiance of the rule of law. I really hope he chooses to obey the courts. Because otherwise we'll have a constitutional crisis on our hands much faster than I anticipated. --Bob

Bob, you never answered my question. Are you or your firm being funded in any way by George Soros or any organization controlled by him?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

No, we will find out if that judge has the authority and if it is a valid order. I think not.

For the moment it doesn't matter. It is not a defense to contempt of a federal court's order that the order was legally erroneous and should not have been issued. (The rule is different for some state courts, including those of California.) And a federal TRO is not an appealable order (again, some states, including California, have a different rule), so there's very little immediate recourse. Whether it's right or wrong, the government is legally obligated to obey Judge Birotte's order. Given Donny's open hostility to the courts, I expect the federal courts to enforce their orders quite vigorously. We've already seen Judge Brinkema order the United States Marshal Service enforce her order.

Assuming Judge Pirotte issues a preliminary injunction that tracks his TRO, that preliminary injunction will be an appealable order. That's when we'll find out whether the Ninth Circuit agrees with you or whether, instead, it agrees with the five federal judges across the country who have found Donny's ban to be illegal.

Donny has two choices. He can have his government abide by court orders even if he disagrees with them. Or he can declare his open defiance of the rule of law. I really hope he chooses to obey the courts. Because otherwise we'll have a constitutional crisis on our hands much faster than I anticipated. --Bob

Bob, you never answered my question. Are you or your firm being funded in any way by George Soros or any organization controlled by him?

I seriously doubt it but I'm not in that loop. We're paid by our clients and I don't think we represent him.

If you're suggesting that my integrity is for sale, you're both wrong and offensive. These are my political views and my own legal analysis. They have nothing to do with my work. If we were involved in any of these cases on a professional basis, I wouldn't comment on them publicly (outside of court filings) without client permission or without identifying myself as an attorney for my client.

Turnabout is fair play. How much compensation are you receiving to shill for Donny? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:For the moment it doesn't matter. It is not a defense to contempt of a federal court's order that the order was legally erroneous and should not have been issued. (The rule is different for some state courts, including those of California.) And a federal TRO is not an appealable order (again, some states, including California, have a different rule), so there's very little immediate recourse. Whether it's right or wrong, the government is legally obligated to obey Judge Birotte's order. Given Donny's open hostility to the courts, I expect the federal courts to enforce their orders quite vigorously. We've already seen Judge Brinkema order the United States Marshal Service enforce her order.

Assuming Judge Pirotte issues a preliminary injunction that tracks his TRO, that preliminary injunction will be an appealable order. That's when we'll find out whether the Ninth Circuit agrees with you or whether, instead, it agrees with the five federal judges across the country who have found Donny's ban to be illegal.

Donny has two choices. He can have his government abide by court orders even if he disagrees with them. Or he can declare his open defiance of the rule of law. I really hope he chooses to obey the courts. Because otherwise we'll have a constitutional crisis on our hands much faster than I anticipated. --Bob

Bob, you never answered my question. Are you or your firm being funded in any way by George Soros or any organization controlled by him?

I seriously doubt it but I'm not in that loop. We're paid by our clients and I don't think we represent him.

If you're suggesting that my integrity is for sale, you're both wrong and offensive. These are my political views and my own legal analysis. They have nothing to do with my work. If we were involved in any of these cases on a professional basis, I wouldn't comment on them publicly (outside of court filings) without client permission or without identifying myself as an attorney for my client.

Turnabout is fair play. How much compensation are you receiving to shill for Donny? --Bob

I'm not a shill. How much do you think I get? It just seems like that to you since you're so far off in the deep end. I oppose what he's doing as much as I opposed what President Obama did, and I have said so. But I didn't make Obama into a cartoon and mock him like you are doing. The whole 'resistance' is both childish in that respect and dangerous, as shown in Berkeley. Those thugs protest against supposed fascism by acting like fascists themselves.
If you step back a bit, it might occur to you that your outrage is being managed and directed. But that would require a bit of introspection, which apparently is scarce among liberals.

I seriously doubt it but I'm not in that loop. We're paid by our clients and I don't think we represent him.

Well, Bob, if you are being paid for the stupid, petty BS you are doing, the money has to come from somewhere, right? Would you be concerned if the money came from Russia, or North Korea or China? But I'll bet it comes from the Soros conglomerate, which is just as bad. If I were you, I would find out.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

I seriously doubt it but I'm not in that loop. We're paid by our clients and I don't think we represent him.

Well, Bob, if you are being paid for the stupid, petty BS you are doing, the money has to come from somewhere, right? Would you be concerned if the money came from Russia, or North Korea or China? But I'll bet it comes from the Soros conglomerate, which is just as bad. If I were you, I would find out.

I'm paid for my legal work. You're getting my political opinions gratis. --Bob