It's not a Muslim ban.

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#26 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:14 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Those thugs protest against supposed fascism by acting like fascists themselves.
The people who engaged in violence should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail. Violence has no place in this movement. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#27 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:32 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
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
I want a refund.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#28 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:36 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Those thugs protest against supposed fascism by acting like fascists themselves.
The people who engaged in violence should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail. Violence has no place in this movement. --Bob
I am wondering, though, whether the outsiders who engaged in the violence were engaged in a false flag operation. I guess we'll find out as they're apprehended and tried. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#29 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:38 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Those thugs protest against supposed fascism by acting like fascists themselves.
The people who engaged in violence should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail. Violence has no place in this movement. --Bob
Yet your 'movement' is apparently partly motivated by the lie that President Trump is associated with white supremacist groups. You cannot just wipe away your hypocrisy. Either these thugs represent your 'movement', or your 'movement' is based on a lie.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#30 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:39 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Those thugs protest against supposed fascism by acting like fascists themselves.
The people who engaged in violence should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail. Violence has no place in this movement. --Bob
I am wondering, though, whether the outsiders who engaged in the violence were engaged in a false flag operation. I guess we'll find out as they're apprehended and tried. --Bob
They did pretty much the same thing at the U of Washington. They are big 1st amendment supporters.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#31 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:48 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Those thugs protest against supposed fascism by acting like fascists themselves.
The people who engaged in violence should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail. Violence has no place in this movement. --Bob
I am wondering, though, whether the outsiders who engaged in the violence were engaged in a false flag operation. I guess we'll find out as they're apprehended and tried. --Bob
There was only 1 arrest. Can't say for sure but apparently, the law enforcement community in Berkeley is part of the 'movement'.

Your 'movement' needs a catchy name. I saw one sign at the Berkeley riot which pretty much sums it up. "Be Ungovernable".

In the spirit of that, I think the name should be:
Spoiler
"Being Offensive Will Eliminate Laws"

So you can be part of the B.O.W.E.L. Movement.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#32 Post by jarnon » Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:53 pm

jarnon wrote: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.
The family is now reunited in Allentown. They were on the local and national news tonight.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#33 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:30 am

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:
"We are thankful to Mr. Newcomer, of course, since he has shown the real face of the U.S. and proved what Iran has said for 38 years about the political, economic, social and moral corruption of the U.S. government."
Not that I care a whole lot about what the chief dictator in Iran thinks personally, but his statements and various versions thereof are going to get a whole lot of traction among those disaffected Muslims that groups like ISIS keep trying to recruit. Every time Trump opens his mouth, it's a recruiting bonanza for ISIS. Plus, statements like this are calculated to get under Trump's skin (admittedly not a difficult task) and provoke an even more extreme reaction, like a poorly thought out retaliation.

https://www.apnews.com/31ae57e1a99f4e05 ... P_Politics
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#34 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 25, 2017 12:52 pm

The Fourth Circuit has ruled against the revised Muslim ban. The opinion is 205 pages long so it may be a while before I get the chance to read it. This wasn't a three-judge panel. The entire Circuit ruled en banc. Seven of the thirteen judges joined the Court's opinion in full. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#35 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 25, 2017 2:59 pm

Wow. The Fourth Circuit didn't mince words.
Chief Judge Gregory wrote:These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both EO-1 and EO-2: President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States. The statements also reveal President Trump’s intended means of effectuating the ban: by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly.
I don't think I've ever before seen an appellate court reach so direct a conclusion of religious enmity. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#36 Post by jarnon » Thu May 25, 2017 3:02 pm

Bob78164 wrote:The Fourth Circuit has ruled against the revised Muslim ban. The opinion is 205 pages long so it may be a while before I get the chance to read it. This wasn't a three-judge panel. The entire Circuit ruled en banc. Seven of the thirteen judges joined the Court's opinion in full. --Bob
I took a quick look. The first 11 pages just list the participants in the case. Page 12 contains this eloquent summary of the case from Chief Judge Gregory:
The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution ... remains “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs’ right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles — that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district court’s issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Executive Order.
Then it says that 10 of the 13 judges concurred with the injunction.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#37 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 25, 2017 3:26 pm

jarnon wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:The Fourth Circuit has ruled against the revised Muslim ban. The opinion is 205 pages long so it may be a while before I get the chance to read it. This wasn't a three-judge panel. The entire Circuit ruled en banc. Seven of the thirteen judges joined the Court's opinion in full. --Bob
I took a quick look. The first 11 pages just list the participants in the case. Page 12 contains this eloquent summary of the case from Chief Judge Gregory:
The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution ... remains “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs’ right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles — that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district court’s issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Executive Order.
Then it says that 10 of the 13 judges concurred with the injunction.
I just finished reading the main opinion. The Court concluded that national security was used as a pretext for targeting Muslims because of their religion, just like Donny said he'd do during the campaign. The Court also concluded that the Order used territories as a proxy for religion in an attempt to disguise that unlawful purpose, just like Donny and his minions said he'd do during the campaign. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#38 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 25, 2017 10:46 pm

Two of the dissenters were appointed by President Obama. The third by Bush 41. Two (regular) judges (as opposed to Senior Judges) did not participate. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#39 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 26, 2017 10:44 am

Bob78164 wrote:Two of the dissenters were appointed by President Obama. The third by Bush 41. Two (regular) judges (as opposed to Senior Judges) did not participate. --Bob
Correction. I got the years wrong. Two of the dissenters were appointed by Bush 43. The third by Bush 41. Chief Judge Gregory, who wrote the Court's opinion, was originally a Clinton recess appointment and then received his "full" commission from Bush 41. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#40 Post by jarnon » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:08 am

The Justice Department says the purpose of the Executive Order is national security, not religious discrimination. They'll have to explain tweets like this:
@realDonaldTrump wrote:People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!
@realDonaldTrump wrote:The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
The ban's opponents don't need Bob's legal help. The President is making their job too easy.

This is the second time in recent weeks that the President has contradicted his own Justice Department.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#41 Post by Estonut » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:17 pm

jarnon wrote:The Justice Department says the purpose of the Executive Order is national security, not religious discrimination. They'll have to explain tweets like this:
@realDonaldTrump wrote:People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!
@realDonaldTrump wrote:The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
The ban's opponents don't need Bob's legal help. The President is making their job too easy.

This is the second time in recent weeks that the President has contradicted his own Justice Department.
How does "travel ban" either affirm "religious discrimination" or contradict "national security?"
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#42 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:41 pm

Estonut wrote:
jarnon wrote:The Justice Department says the purpose of the Executive Order is national security, not religious discrimination. They'll have to explain tweets like this:
@realDonaldTrump wrote:People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!
@realDonaldTrump wrote:The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
The ban's opponents don't need Bob's legal help. The President is making their job too easy.

This is the second time in recent weeks that the President has contradicted his own Justice Department.
How does "travel ban" either affirm "religious discrimination" or contradict "national security?"
The Administration's legal position is that it's not a "ban." It just slows things down for a more careful security check. In light of everything Donny's said since announcing for President, that's obvious bullshit (the legal term is pretext), but that's what the Justice Department has been saying.

Donny's latest tweet just forcefully demonstrated that the District Court's finding of pretext, affirmed by the Fourth Circuit en banc, was absolutely right. The purpose of the ban was to keep Muslims out of the country, not because they are dangerous (there is no evidence that keeping Muslim's out of the country would keep us safer and significant evidence in the government's own documents that it would have the opposite effect), but because they are Muslim. That's a crystal clear violation of the First Amendment. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14888
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#43 Post by Beebs52 » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:41 pm

Estonut wrote:
jarnon wrote:The Justice Department says the purpose of the Executive Order is national security, not religious discrimination. They'll have to explain tweets like this:
@realDonaldTrump wrote:People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!
@realDonaldTrump wrote:The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
The ban's opponents don't need Bob's legal help. The President is making their job too easy.

This is the second time in recent weeks that the President has contradicted his own Justice Department.
How does "travel ban" either affirm "religious discrimination" or contradict "national security?"
Because explaining that would make their heads splode. Bless their peapickin youknowwhats.
Well, then

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#44 Post by Estonut » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:51 pm

Bob78164 wrote:The Administration's legal position is that it's not a "ban." It just slows things down for a more careful security check.
Are you against slowing things down for a more careful security check?
Bob78164 wrote:In light of everything Donny's said since announcing for President, that's obvious bullshit (the legal term is pretext), but that's what the Justice Department has been saying.
It is my understanding that lawyerly types are supposed to ignore everything not directly related to this case. Are you now in favor of "prejudicing the jury?"
Bob78164 wrote:Donny's latest tweet just forcefully demonstrated that the District Court's finding of pretext, affirmed by the Fourth Circuit en banc, was absolutely right. The purpose of the ban was to keep Muslims out of the country, not because they are dangerous (there is no evidence that keeping Muslim's out of the country would keep us safer and significant evidence in the government's own documents that it would have the opposite effect), but because they are Muslim. That's a crystal clear violation of the First Amendment.
The only one I see mentioning Muslims is you. Please cite where in their propsal they are specifically saying they are trying "to keep Muslims out of the country."
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#45 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:09 am

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:The Administration's legal position is that it's not a "ban." It just slows things down for a more careful security check.
Are you against slowing things down for a more careful security check?
Bob78164 wrote:In light of everything Donny's said since announcing for President, that's obvious bullshit (the legal term is pretext), but that's what the Justice Department has been saying.
It is my understanding that lawyerly types are supposed to ignore everything not directly related to this case. Are you now in favor of "prejudicing the jury?"
Bob78164 wrote:Donny's latest tweet just forcefully demonstrated that the District Court's finding of pretext, affirmed by the Fourth Circuit en banc, was absolutely right. The purpose of the ban was to keep Muslims out of the country, not because they are dangerous (there is no evidence that keeping Muslim's out of the country would keep us safer and significant evidence in the government's own documents that it would have the opposite effect), but because they are Muslim. That's a crystal clear violation of the First Amendment.
The only one I see mentioning Muslims is you. Please cite where in their propsal they are specifically saying they are trying "to keep Muslims out of the country."
If you'd read the Fourth Circuit's opinion, you'd see that Donny's statements are emblazoned all over the record. And the whole point of pretextual analysis is to determine whether the government is trying to conceal its true and unlawful motivation for a discriminatory act. Otherwise government could get away with almost anything by simply refusing to acknowledge its true motivation. Fortunately, the law (in accord with common sense) doesn't work that way.

I am opposed to singling out Muslims for a more careful security check because of their religion. Not only is it unconstitutional, it's also counterproductive because it contributes to the radicalization of U.S. citizens and permanent residents without keeping out the people who actually want to do us harm. But that's exactly what Donny promised his voters he'd do, and this is one element of his pandering and fear-mongering that he's actually trying to fulfill. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#46 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:02 am

Estonut wrote: Please cite where in their propsal they are specifically saying they are trying "to keep Muslims out of the country."
Esto, you're good at looking things up in the dictionary.

Look up "pretext."
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#47 Post by Estonut » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:24 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
Estonut wrote:Please cite where in their propsal they are specifically saying they are trying "to keep Muslims out of the country."
Esto, you're good at looking things up in the dictionary.

Look up "pretext."
I don't need to. I know what it means. Are you now saying you have developed SSS-like mind-reading skills? You are reading things into something which may or may not be there. What ever happened to the requirement for proof?
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#48 Post by jarnon » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:20 am

Estonut wrote:Are you now saying you have developed SSS-like mind-reading skills? You are reading things into something which may or may not be there. What ever happened to the requirement for proof?
SSS and Bob# don't need mind-reading powers when the President is open about his intent. After the courts said the original EO was discriminatory, the White House wrote a revised version that removed the worst parts and added language about national security. But now Trump says the new EO is watered down and he prefers the first one. That makes it harder for the Justice Dept. to claim that the new EO is legal.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#49 Post by BackInTex » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:07 am

jarnon wrote:
Estonut wrote:Are you now saying you have developed SSS-like mind-reading skills? You are reading things into something which may or may not be there. What ever happened to the requirement for proof?
SSS and Bob# don't need mind-reading powers when the President is open about his intent. After the courts said the original EO was discriminatory, the White House wrote a revised version that removed the worst parts and added language about national security. But now Trump says the new EO is watered down and he prefers the first one. That makes it harder for the Justice Dept. to claim that the new EO is legal.
Why would Trump's preference of one over the other have any bearing on the legality of one or the other. Did Justice take her blindfold off?
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: It's not a Muslim ban.

#50 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:47 am

BackInTex wrote: Did Justice take her blindfold off?
Justice may be blind but it's not deaf. Trump is his own worst enemy with his tweets. Here, he pretty much confirmed that the language about "national security" was a pretext to make the courts happy. And it's not just Bob and me saying this, but George Conway made the same point.

It's the same story when the White House staff issued denials of a number of these leaked stories, only to have Trump confirm them a day or two later. The number of these leaked stories that get confirmed and proved out indicates that, contrary to Flock and Trump's screaming about #FakeNews, the Washington Post and New York Times are doing their job with these stories. From what I understand, these stories generally need to be double or triple sourced, and there is independent fact checking as well for accuracy before they get to print.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

Post Reply