Welcome to the Sexy and Funny Forums forums.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest which gives you very limited access to what we have to offer. By joining our community you will have access to post replies/topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, remove some of the ads and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Bored? Go watch girls get naked on cam for free!

Go Back   Sexy and Funny Forums > Special Interest > The Master Debaters
User Name
Password

Latest from S&F
Random S&F
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes 0 Attachment(s)
Old 04-11-2017, 11:28 AM   #21
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,830
Casino Cash: $2904
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.36
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)x2
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)
Default

Go listen to what he said again. Take off your "I hate Trump" glasses.

He said the ban in based on the threat - which is what Carter did. The fact both ban Muslims because mostly Muslims come from those areas is irrelevant. But, if it is relevant then Carter also banned Muslims.

Giuliani has no role in the Trump Administration. The EO does not say "We are banning Muslims". Better yet, lets see what SCOTUS says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Watched your Fox News link.... So, this is what you and the left are clinging to when you claim it is a Muslim ban? For real? Guiliani explains how it is NOT a Muslim ban and based on the threat and danger. And, this is what these nutball judges on the 9th circuit as basing it on?
You're becoming as crazy as daft. Guiliani's words speak for themselves, your twisting of what he said also speaks for itself.
__________________
------------


Quote:
darthbob88

"Dammit all to hell, nitpicking inspectors with clipboards and pencils behind their ears have done more to protect the rights of this nation than soldiers ever have."
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2017, 12:32 PM   #22
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,258
Casino Cash: $5319
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.94
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11165 total rep)
+10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Go listen to what he said again. Take off your "I hate Trump" glasses.

He said the ban in based on the threat - which is what Carter did. The fact both ban Muslims because mostly Muslims come from those areas is irrelevant. But, if it is relevant then Carter also banned Muslims.

Giuliani has no role in the Trump Administration. The EO does not say "We are banning Muslims". Better yet, lets see what SCOTUS says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
You're becoming as crazy as daft. Guiliani's words speak for themselves, your twisting of what he said also speaks for itself.

The countries that he included in the ban haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil for almost 30 years. Soooooo, what's the threat that warrants a ban?

But you're the guy who seems to favor the Republican strategy of "take either a thought experiment or a mild policy, crank the stupidity of it up to 11, then enjoy," so it's okay if you didn't know that.
ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2017, 07:33 PM   #23
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,121
Casino Cash: $9674
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.13
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65dart
You do realize the president can legaly ban muslims. The president can ban a group of people that is considered a danger to the us citizens, and or country. The whole freedom of religion does not applt because these people are not citizens of the US. The great left seems to think the rights of our constitution extends to non citizens.
How typical of you to change the subject when you can't logically argue your side. The question was not whether he could legally ban Muslims. That's for the courts to decide, not some internet cowboy on a politics forum. The question was how similar Carter's ban on Iranians was to Trumps.


Can you even follow your own argument. I didn't change the subject. Your whole argument is based on that trump is trying to pull an okey doke because he can't legally ban muslims. We he can legally ban muslims, so your argument is completely null and void, because your basing it on false info. Your the one trying to deflect off, Because basically with trump trying to ban certain countries and not all muslims, it shows it obvious he is trying to go after where the threat lies and not after a group of people.
65dart is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2017, 07:39 PM   #24
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,121
Casino Cash: $9674
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.13
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Go listen to what he said again. Take off your "I hate Trump" glasses.

He said the ban in based on the threat - which is what Carter did. The fact both ban Muslims because mostly Muslims come from those areas is irrelevant. But, if it is relevant then Carter also banned Muslims.

Giuliani has no role in the Trump Administration. The EO does not say "We are banning Muslims". Better yet, lets see what SCOTUS says.


The countries that he included in the ban haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil for almost 30 years. Soooooo, what's the threat that warrants a ban?

But you're the guy who seems to favor the Republican strategy of "take either a thought experiment or a mild policy, crank the stupidity of it up to 11, then enjoy," so it's okay if you didn't know that.


We have this thing called military intelligence. They are the ones that track the movment of isis. So info that you will never have acess to is what warrants the ban. You know the same reason Obama started military action in an additional 7 countries during his presidency.

Your logic is idiotic. It would be like having a rapitist move in next you, and then burying your head in the sand saying their hasn't been a rape in this neighborhood for 30 years so we are all safe.
65dart is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2017, 09:46 PM   #25
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,830
Casino Cash: $2904
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.36
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)x2
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)
Default

I guess the same threat that led the Obama administration to put those countries on a list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Go listen to what he said again. Take off your "I hate Trump" glasses.

He said the ban in based on the threat - which is what Carter did. The fact both ban Muslims because mostly Muslims come from those areas is irrelevant. But, if it is relevant then Carter also banned Muslims.

Giuliani has no role in the Trump Administration. The EO does not say "We are banning Muslims". Better yet, lets see what SCOTUS says.


The countries that he included in the ban haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil for almost 30 years. Soooooo, what's the threat that warrants a ban?

But you're the guy who seems to favor the Republican strategy of "take either a thought experiment or a mild policy, crank the stupidity of it up to 11, then enjoy," so it's okay if you didn't know that.
__________________
------------


Quote:
darthbob88

"Dammit all to hell, nitpicking inspectors with clipboards and pencils behind their ears have done more to protect the rights of this nation than soldiers ever have."
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2017, 09:57 PM   #26
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,830
Casino Cash: $2904
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.36
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)x2
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_O...ck#Perpetrator

The attacker was a Somali refugee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Go listen to what he said again. Take off your "I hate Trump" glasses.

He said the ban in based on the threat - which is what Carter did. The fact both ban Muslims because mostly Muslims come from those areas is irrelevant. But, if it is relevant then Carter also banned Muslims.

Giuliani has no role in the Trump Administration. The EO does not say "We are banning Muslims". Better yet, lets see what SCOTUS says.


The countries that he included in the ban haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil for almost 30 years. Soooooo, what's the threat that warrants a ban?

But you're the guy who seems to favor the Republican strategy of "take either a thought experiment or a mild policy, crank the stupidity of it up to 11, then enjoy," so it's okay if you didn't know that.
__________________
------------


Quote:
darthbob88

"Dammit all to hell, nitpicking inspectors with clipboards and pencils behind their ears have done more to protect the rights of this nation than soldiers ever have."
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 05:15 AM   #27
billxl883
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
billxl883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,788
Casino Cash: $5074
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.10
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Go listen to what he said again. Take off your "I hate Trump" glasses.
As soon as you take off your "liberals are automatically wrong" glasses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
He said the ban in based on the threat - which is what Carter did. The fact both ban Muslims because mostly Muslims come from those areas is irrelevant. But, if it is relevant then Carter also banned Muslims.
Guiliani said Trump first announced he wanted a Muslim ban. Then Trump called Guiliani and wanted him to put a commission together and show him the right way to do it legally. Carter, on the other hand, never wanted nor attempted to ban all Muslims. Sorry, but your comparison is the epitome of false equivalence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Giuliani has no role in the Trump Administration. The EO does not say "We are banning Muslims". Better yet, lets see what SCOTUS says.
Guiliani has no title or paid position, but he is the one Trump turned to. You seem to want to erase the facts as told by Guiliani because he's an unpaid advisor.

The facts just don't support your contention that the two bans are similar. But you'll never see that because you need to find some excuse for every stupid thing the Trumpster does.
__________________
Trained by experts in the art of hiding dead bodies.
billxl883 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 05:28 AM   #28
billxl883
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
billxl883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,788
Casino Cash: $5074
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.10
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65dart
Can you even follow your own argument. I didn't change the subject. Your whole argument is based on that trump is trying to pull an okey doke because he can't legally ban muslims.
Wrong again dude, naturally. You want it to be about Trump legally banning Muslims because that's your best argument. Look at the first post in the thread. Tell me that's about the legality of banning Muslims. Do it with a straight face.

You say that he can legally ban Muslims, or any other religion, as if you're the final arbiter. You're not. Several federal district judges and federal appeals courts have disagreed with you. I'd venture to say they know more about the Constitution than you or I do.
__________________
Trained by experts in the art of hiding dead bodies.
billxl883 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 12:00 PM   #29
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,830
Casino Cash: $2904
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.36
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)x2
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)
Default

Trump's "Muslim" ban is terribly ineffective at banning Muslims if he doesn't include countries like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. And, the order does not mention banning Muslims.

You're relatively intelligent - sometimes. You know its not a "Muslim" ban. Just as I know Carter's wasn't a Muslim ban. I don't understand why you keep playing silly games with this. We aren't talking heads on political shows.

I enjoy a good debate on here occasionally. But, this is just silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
As soon as you take off your "liberals are automatically wrong" glasses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
He said the ban in based on the threat - which is what Carter did. The fact both ban Muslims because mostly Muslims come from those areas is irrelevant. But, if it is relevant then Carter also banned Muslims.
Guiliani said Trump first announced he wanted a Muslim ban. Then Trump called Guiliani and wanted him to put a commission together and show him the right way to do it legally. Carter, on the other hand, never wanted nor attempted to ban all Muslims. Sorry, but your comparison is the epitome of false equivalence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Giuliani has no role in the Trump Administration. The EO does not say "We are banning Muslims". Better yet, lets see what SCOTUS says.
Guiliani has no title or paid position, but he is the one Trump turned to. You seem to want to erase the facts as told by Guiliani because he's an unpaid advisor.

The facts just don't support your contention that the two bans are similar. But you'll never see that because you need to find some excuse for every stupid thing the Trumpster does.
__________________
------------


Quote:
darthbob88

"Dammit all to hell, nitpicking inspectors with clipboards and pencils behind their ears have done more to protect the rights of this nation than soldiers ever have."
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 08:04 PM   #30
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,121
Casino Cash: $9674
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.13
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65dart
Can you even follow your own argument. I didn't change the subject. Your whole argument is based on that trump is trying to pull an okey doke because he can't legally ban muslims.
Wrong again dude, naturally. You want it to be about Trump legally banning Muslims because that's your best argument. Look at the first post in the thread. Tell me that's about the legality of banning Muslims. Do it with a straight face.

You say that he can legally ban Muslims, or any other religion, as if you're the final arbiter. You're not. Several federal district judges and federal appeals courts have disagreed with you. I'd venture to say they know more about the Constitution than you or I do.

No every one else wants it to be about banning muslims because that is there best argument. Trumps EO has nothing to do with banning muslims. But everyone else keeps bringing up that is a bann on muslims. Which a president can legally ban muslims if they are seen as a threat to the well being of the country.

So on that note a judge has found his EO of banning people from certain countries illegal. So what the judges say has nothing to do with the argument of wether or not it is illegal to ban muslims because that is not what the judges are ruling on.
65dart is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2017, 06:51 AM   #31
billxl883
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
billxl883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,788
Casino Cash: $5074
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.10
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Trump's "Muslim" ban is terribly ineffective at banning Muslims if he doesn't include countries like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. And, the order does not mention banning Muslims.

You're relatively intelligent - sometimes. You know its not a "Muslim" ban. Just as I know Carter's wasn't a Muslim ban. I don't understand why you keep playing silly games with this. We aren't talking heads on political shows.

I enjoy a good debate on here occasionally. But, this is just silly.
You're correct when you say it's not a Muslim ban. My position is not that it is a Muslim ban, but that his intent was to satisfy his xenophobic supporters to whom he promised a Muslim ban. His instructions, according to Rudy, were to find a way to make his campaign promise legal. The fact that Rudy and the commission couldn't find a way to legalize it does not negate his intent.
__________________
Trained by experts in the art of hiding dead bodies.
billxl883 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2017, 07:02 AM   #32
billxl883
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
billxl883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,788
Casino Cash: $5074
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.10
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65daft
So on that note a judge has found his EO of banning people from certain countries illegal. So what the judges say has nothing to do with the argument of wether or not it is illegal to ban muslims because that is not what the judges are ruling on.
You really shouldn't try to comment on something when your knowledge is so limited. Judges have taken earlier statements made by Trump as evidence that the intent is to ban a religion. They say that's a violation of the establishment clause. So yes, it does have to do with whether or not it is illegal to ban Muslims.

Try reading/watching the news sometime.
__________________
Trained by experts in the art of hiding dead bodies.

Last edited by billxl883 : 04-13-2017 at 07:07 AM.
billxl883 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2017, 04:23 PM   #33
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,830
Casino Cash: $2904
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.36
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)x2
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)
Default

Thank you. We agree - somewhat. A rare occasion.

Trump's EO will end up in the SCOTUS. I'm almost certain Trump will prevail in the SCOTUS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Trump's "Muslim" ban is terribly ineffective at banning Muslims if he doesn't include countries like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. And, the order does not mention banning Muslims.

You're relatively intelligent - sometimes. You know its not a "Muslim" ban. Just as I know Carter's wasn't a Muslim ban. I don't understand why you keep playing silly games with this. We aren't talking heads on political shows.

I enjoy a good debate on here occasionally. But, this is just silly.
You're correct when you say it's not a Muslim ban. My position is not that it is a Muslim ban, but that his intent was to satisfy his xenophobic supporters to whom he promised a Muslim ban. His instructions, according to Rudy, were to find a way to make his campaign promise legal. The fact that Rudy and the commission couldn't find a way to legalize it does not negate his intent.
__________________
------------


Quote:
darthbob88

"Dammit all to hell, nitpicking inspectors with clipboards and pencils behind their ears have done more to protect the rights of this nation than soldiers ever have."
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2017, 07:30 PM   #34
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,121
Casino Cash: $9674
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.13
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65daft
So on that note a judge has found his EO of banning people from certain countries illegal. So what the judges say has nothing to do with the argument of wether or not it is illegal to ban muslims because that is not what the judges are ruling on.
You really shouldn't try to comment on something when your knowledge is so limited. Judges have taken earlier statements made by Trump as evidence that the intent is to ban a religion. They say that's a violation of the establishment clause. So yes, it does have to do with whether or not it is illegal to ban Muslims.

Try reading/watching the news sometime.

No bill you shoundn't rebutte me when you have no clue as to what your saying and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. To attempt to write a law that has secondary meaning, such as saying were banning these countries in order to ban muslims is illegal. But to bann muslims outright is not illegal. So the whole trump is lying to ban muslims because banning muslims is illegal is a farse of a argument. So your basically using a bunch of bullshit that left believes to be true to base your argument. Which makes your your argument invalid because its based on false facts.
65dart is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 05:44 AM   #35
billxl883
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
billxl883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,788
Casino Cash: $5074
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.10
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65dart
No bill you shoundn't rebutte me when you have no clue as to what your saying and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. To attempt to write a law that has secondary meaning, such as saying were banning these countries in order to ban muslims is illegal. But to bann muslims outright is not illegal. So the whole trump is lying to ban muslims because banning muslims is illegal is a farse of a argument. So your basically using a bunch of bullshit that left believes to be true to base your argument. Which makes your your argument invalid because its based on false facts.
Another one of your convoluted arguments.

You really need to read the judge's opinions. The judges have said that banning Muslims is a violation of the establishment clause, so yes, it is illegal to ban Muslims.
__________________
Trained by experts in the art of hiding dead bodies.
billxl883 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 07:21 AM   #36
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,121
Casino Cash: $9674
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.13
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65dart
No bill you shoundn't rebutte me when you have no clue as to what your saying and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. To attempt to write a law that has secondary meaning, such as saying were banning these countries in order to ban muslims is illegal. But to bann muslims outright is not illegal. So the whole trump is lying to ban muslims because banning muslims is illegal is a farse of a argument. So your basically using a bunch of bullshit that left believes to be true to base your argument. Which makes your your argument invalid because its based on false facts.
Another one of your convoluted arguments.

You really need to read the judge's opinions. The judges have said that banning Muslims is a violation of the establishment clause, so yes, it is illegal to ban Muslims.

Dear lord your dense. The judges decision is on trumps EO. It has nothing to do with wether or not trump can outright bann muslims. The problem is trump cannot pick and choose which people he can bann from country it has to be all or non. Or he has to go out right and ban all muslims. There in lies the legal problems with his EO.

But on the matter of your argument, your just deflecting at this point. Your whole argument was that trump was trying to find a legal way to ban muslims. Trump doesn't have to find a legal way as it all ready written into law that he can ban any class of immigrants into the untied states that he feels are a threat to safety. So it doesn't really matter what a judge says about the EO, because the basis of your argument is still wrong.
65dart is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 02:49 PM   #37
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,830
Casino Cash: $2904
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.36
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)x2
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18497 total rep)
+10
Default

From the LA Times:

The states argued the ban violates constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection and religious freedom. In the following section, the states, citing a precedent from a key same-sex marriage case, contend that the mere scope of the order shows it was intended to discriminate.


Even if the Order did not make suspect classifications, it would be illegal because ‘its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the [Order] seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects.’ Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996). For several months it bans all travelers from the listed countries and all refugees, whether they be infants, schoolchildren, or grandparents. And though it cites the attacks of September 11, 2001, as a rationale, it imposes no restrictions on people from the countries whose nationals carried out those attacks. ‘It is at once too narrow and too broad,’ id. at 633, and cannot withstand any level of scrutiny. See, e.g., United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013) (‘The Constitution’s guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare [legislative] desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.’).

I don't think the states will be successful in the SCOTUS. I personally think that Trump should include North Korea as well. We cannot vet people from there, either. Then the whole "Muslim ban" charge really falls flat.
__________________
------------


Quote:
darthbob88

"Dammit all to hell, nitpicking inspectors with clipboards and pencils behind their ears have done more to protect the rights of this nation than soldiers ever have."
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 03:27 AM   #38
billxl883
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
billxl883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,788
Casino Cash: $5074
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.10
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65daft
Dear lord your dense. The judges decision is on trumps EO. It has nothing to do with wether or not trump can outright bann muslims. The problem is trump cannot pick and choose which people he can bann from country it has to be all or non. Or he has to go out right and ban all muslims. There in lies the legal problems with his EO.

But on the matter of your argument, your just deflecting at this point. Your whole argument was that trump was trying to find a legal way to ban muslims. Trump doesn't have to find a legal way as it all ready written into law that he can ban any class of immigrants into the untied states that he feels are a threat to safety. So it doesn't really matter what a judge says about the EO, because the basis of your argument is still wrong.
Sorry fool, but the judges have said differently.

One of the problems with stupid people like you is that they don't realize that they're stupid. They just keep repeating the same falsehood over and over as if repeating it makes it true.
__________________
Trained by experts in the art of hiding dead bodies.
billxl883 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 03:33 AM   #39
billxl883
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
billxl883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,788
Casino Cash: $5074
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.10
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (11426 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
From the LA Times:

The states argued the ban violates constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection and religious freedom. In the following section, the states, citing a precedent from a key same-sex marriage case, contend that the mere scope of the order shows it was intended to discriminate.


Even if the Order did not make suspect classifications, it would be illegal because ‘its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the [Order] seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects.’ Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996). For several months it bans all travelers from the listed countries and all refugees, whether they be infants, schoolchildren, or grandparents. And though it cites the attacks of September 11, 2001, as a rationale, it imposes no restrictions on people from the countries whose nationals carried out those attacks. ‘It is at once too narrow and too broad,’ id. at 633, and cannot withstand any level of scrutiny. See, e.g., United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013) (‘The Constitution’s guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare [legislative] desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.’).

I don't think the states will be successful in the SCOTUS. I personally think that Trump should include North Korea as well. We cannot vet people from there, either. Then the whole "Muslim ban" charge really falls flat.
Thank you.

The whole Muslim ban thing would fall flat if he had banned entry of those from countries that terrorists had actually come from.
__________________
Trained by experts in the art of hiding dead bodies.
billxl883 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 08:32 AM   #40
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,121
Casino Cash: $9674
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.13
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13024 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65daft
Dear lord your dense. The judges decision is on trumps EO. It has nothing to do with wether or not trump can outright bann muslims. The problem is trump cannot pick and choose which people he can bann from country it has to be all or non. Or he has to go out right and ban all muslims. There in lies the legal problems with his EO.

But on the matter of your argument, your just deflecting at this point. Your whole argument was that trump was trying to find a legal way to ban muslims. Trump doesn't have to find a legal way as it all ready written into law that he can ban any class of immigrants into the untied states that he feels are a threat to safety. So it doesn't really matter what a judge says about the EO, because the basis of your argument is still wrong.
Sorry fool, but the judges have said differently.

One of the problems with stupid people like you is that they don't realize that they're stupid. They just keep repeating the same falsehood over and over as if repeating it makes it true.

One more time try to get it thru your thick head what the judge is saying is about trumps EO.
What you are saying was that trump had to legally come up with a way to ban muslims. It is legal for trump to ban muslims, so that makes the basis of your argument that trump had to lie to ban muslims null and void. So it makes your whole argument worthless.

We all know what the judge said, you can keep repeating what the judge said, but that has nothing to do with your ill informed argument that trump lied.

Jesus Christ read a little more than just idiot liberal news. You know the same news that keeps screaming what trump is doing is against freedom of religion that is stated in our constitution. You know that freedom of religion that is forwarded to citizens. Did you catch that yep citizens.
65dart is online now  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags: , ,



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Users Who Have Viewed This Thread In The Last 7 Days: 0
There are no names to display.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.