Avatar
Active topics
Unread | New posts
Your bookmarks
Your friends' posts
Your posts | Quotes
Welcome, CommonCrawl [Bot]!

It is currently 27th March, 2017, 6:34 am


Forum rules


Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.



 Page 222 of 226 [ 4501 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226  Next
GTF's Presidential Approval: At this moment, do you approve of Donald Trump's job as President?
 Yes  20%  20%  [ 10 ]
 No  80%  80%  [ 41 ]
Total votes: 51

Author Message
Unread postPosted: 14th March, 2017, 9:32 pm 
Member
Offline

First name: Nate
Posts: 434
Likes received: 37

Joined: 4th March, 2016, 11:42 pm
Dessy wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
White House fired back before the hour

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/841811274174500866

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... 0m-in-2005

Quote:
The White House released some details of President Trump's income and paid taxes from 2005 Tuesday night, as MSNBC prepared to release the information in an evening broadcast.

Trump reported $150 million in income and $38 million paid in taxes, according to a statement from the White House.


I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. I think we should know who our president has in his pocket and whose pocket he is in. These should have been released months ago. Trump doesn't need to have a fit over something like a report that isn't illegal unless it is libelous.


Right? If there's nothing shady in them then just release them. The fact that we had debates and votes over just him releasing tax returns...


I mean, sure, you're entitled to privacy, but it's not like we are asking where every shred of information about you. Trump should have released his tax returns sooner. I mean, he did make a promise to release his taxes when Clinton released her emails, and if she were in office, I'm sure we would be asking for her emails, but she isn't in a position where we need to know who she has in her pocket, and whose pocket she is in. Trump is. Do I make any sense here?

1 from Anonymous Boy


  
 
Unread postPosted: 15th March, 2017, 8:39 am 
Jesslut, Community Ambassador
User avatar
Offline

First name: Jesse
Posts: 2161
Likes received: 203

Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Team: Westeros
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
White House fired back before the hour

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/841811274174500866

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... 0m-in-2005

Quote:
The White House released some details of President Trump's income and paid taxes from 2005 Tuesday night, as MSNBC prepared to release the information in an evening broadcast.

Trump reported $150 million in income and $38 million paid in taxes, according to a statement from the White House.


I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. I think we should know who our president has in his pocket and whose pocket he is in. These should have been released months ago. Trump doesn't need to have a fit over something like a report that isn't illegal unless it is libelous.


Right? If there's nothing shady in them then just release them. The fact that we had debates and votes over just him releasing tax returns...


I mean, sure, you're entitled to privacy, but it's not like we are asking where every shred of information about you. Trump should have released his tax returns sooner. I mean, he did make a promise to release his taxes when Clinton released her emails, and if she were in office, I'm sure we would be asking for her emails, but she isn't in a position where we need to know who she has in her pocket, and whose pocket she is in. Trump is. Do I make any sense here?

Hillary Clinton released her tax returns all the way back to the 1970s.

And this issue of Hillary's emails. If you were really concerned about emails, why are we not talking about the fact Mike Pence's private email server got hacked, how White House staffers are reportedly using unsecured messaging services (which also happen to be violating the Presidential Records Act), that Trump is reportedly still using his personal phone, how Mar-a-Lago has very little security procedures compared to the White House, the information contained in Scott Pruitt's subpoenaed emails, and so fucking forth.

Do I want to know what was in those emails? *sigh* I guess. I mean... we haven't found anything in the previous ones - unless you consider Bono asking for a meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain corrupt.

When it comes to public figures, privacy isn't really an option. When you're running for the highest office in the land, you don't get to have secrets, things that are only yours. You have to surrender everything about yourself so that you can prove that you are worthy of service. And by not releasing your tax returns, when every single candidate has for decades, is questionable. Sure, in 2005, Trump paid $38 million in federal taxes. What about 2006? 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016? Hell, why don't I just say, I want all the tax returns dating back to the 1970s - like Hillary did.


  
 
Unread postPosted: 15th March, 2017, 12:08 pm 
Member
User avatar
Offline

First name: Casey
Posts: 684
Likes received: 4

Joined: 15th February, 2013, 4:32 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States (us)
It's most likely that Trump leaked these himself. A couple of measly pages from 2005, that overall make him look good, and then Donald Jr. on Twitter saying thank you to the media for reporting on it, because it makes his father look as rich as he says he is - yeah, I think this was done by Trump. Nobody knows the whole picture, and if Trump really pays that much on a yearly basis, why wouldn't he have just released his entire tax returns during the presidential campaign?

It was probably leaked as a diversion from the negativity surrounding "Trumpcare", and to basically make Trump look good, along with him bragging about how he's going to donate his salary to charity (then write it off in his taxes).

Last edited by bluesunstorm on 15th March, 2017, 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.


  
 
Unread postPosted: 15th March, 2017, 12:47 pm 
hotty
User avatar
Offline

First name: Danny
Posts: 1688
Likes received: 168

Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Salem, AK
Country: United States (us)

Team: Middle Earth
Yeah, I also think they were supplied by Trump himself to distract from the issue.


  
 
Unread postPosted: 15th March, 2017, 3:52 pm 
Member
Offline

First name: Nate
Posts: 434
Likes received: 37

Joined: 4th March, 2016, 11:42 pm
TheBrunswickian wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
White House fired back before the hour

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/841811274174500866

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... 0m-in-2005

Quote:
The White House released some details of President Trump's income and paid taxes from 2005 Tuesday night, as MSNBC prepared to release the information in an evening broadcast.

Trump reported $150 million in income and $38 million paid in taxes, according to a statement from the White House.


I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. I think we should know who our president has in his pocket and whose pocket he is in. These should have been released months ago. Trump doesn't need to have a fit over something like a report that isn't illegal unless it is libelous.


Right? If there's nothing shady in them then just release them. The fact that we had debates and votes over just him releasing tax returns...


I mean, sure, you're entitled to privacy, but it's not like we are asking where every shred of information about you. Trump should have released his tax returns sooner. I mean, he did make a promise to release his taxes when Clinton released her emails, and if she were in office, I'm sure we would be asking for her emails, but she isn't in a position where we need to know who she has in her pocket, and whose pocket she is in. Trump is. Do I make any sense here?

Hillary Clinton released her tax returns all the way back to the 1970s.

And this issue of Hillary's emails. If you were really concerned about emails, why are we not talking about the fact Mike Pence's private email server got hacked, how White House staffers are reportedly using unsecured messaging services (which also happen to be violating the Presidential Records Act), that Trump is reportedly still using his personal phone, how Mar-a-Lago has very little security procedures compared to the White House, the information contained in Scott Pruitt's subpoenaed emails, and so fucking forth.

Do I want to know what was in those emails? *sigh* I guess. I mean... we haven't found anything in the previous ones - unless you consider Bono asking for a meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain corrupt.

When it comes to public figures, privacy isn't really an option. When you're running for the highest office in the land, you don't get to have secrets, things that are only yours. You have to surrender everything about yourself so that you can prove that you are worthy of service. And by not releasing your tax returns, when every single candidate has for decades, is questionable. Sure, in 2005, Trump paid $38 million in federal taxes. What about 2006? 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016? Hell, why don't I just say, I want all the tax returns dating back to the 1970s - like Hillary did.


I do want those tax returns unleashed. I do care about those emails. I do care about Trump's phone calls. I'm not defending his actions, or lack thereof. I'm simply saying he said he would release his tax returns when Clinton released her emails. I care about both. I don't think either side of the political spectrum benefits from all the secrecy. You can have your privacy, but you can't have secrecy, if that makes any sense. I am sick of the hypocrisy, secrets, lies, and games both sides of the political spectrum rely on to get elected to make sure that they win, but America doesn't. It's why I want to tear the whole system down piece by piece, and replace it with something all of America will benefit from.


  
 
Unread postPosted: 15th March, 2017, 9:22 pm 
hotty
User avatar
Offline

First name: Danny
Posts: 1688
Likes received: 168

Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Salem, AK
Country: United States (us)

Team: Middle Earth
I am so tired of these judges abusing their power. You all know that the judge's block was a political move and not one based on a question of the legality of the law. It is within the President's power to block immigration from specific countries.

1 from GaycrazyBoi


  
 
Unread postPosted: 15th March, 2017, 9:25 pm 
Jesslut, Community Ambassador
User avatar
Offline

First name: Jesse
Posts: 2161
Likes received: 203

Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Team: Westeros
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
White House fired back before the hour

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/841811274174500866

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... 0m-in-2005

Quote:
The White House released some details of President Trump's income and paid taxes from 2005 Tuesday night, as MSNBC prepared to release the information in an evening broadcast.

Trump reported $150 million in income and $38 million paid in taxes, according to a statement from the White House.


I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. I think we should know who our president has in his pocket and whose pocket he is in. These should have been released months ago. Trump doesn't need to have a fit over something like a report that isn't illegal unless it is libelous.


Right? If there's nothing shady in them then just release them. The fact that we had debates and votes over just him releasing tax returns...


I mean, sure, you're entitled to privacy, but it's not like we are asking where every shred of information about you. Trump should have released his tax returns sooner. I mean, he did make a promise to release his taxes when Clinton released her emails, and if she were in office, I'm sure we would be asking for her emails, but she isn't in a position where we need to know who she has in her pocket, and whose pocket she is in. Trump is. Do I make any sense here?

Hillary Clinton released her tax returns all the way back to the 1970s.

And this issue of Hillary's emails. If you were really concerned about emails, why are we not talking about the fact Mike Pence's private email server got hacked, how White House staffers are reportedly using unsecured messaging services (which also happen to be violating the Presidential Records Act), that Trump is reportedly still using his personal phone, how Mar-a-Lago has very little security procedures compared to the White House, the information contained in Scott Pruitt's subpoenaed emails, and so fucking forth.

Do I want to know what was in those emails? *sigh* I guess. I mean... we haven't found anything in the previous ones - unless you consider Bono asking for a meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain corrupt.

When it comes to public figures, privacy isn't really an option. When you're running for the highest office in the land, you don't get to have secrets, things that are only yours. You have to surrender everything about yourself so that you can prove that you are worthy of service. And by not releasing your tax returns, when every single candidate has for decades, is questionable. Sure, in 2005, Trump paid $38 million in federal taxes. What about 2006? 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016? Hell, why don't I just say, I want all the tax returns dating back to the 1970s - like Hillary did.


I do want those tax returns unleashed. I do care about those emails. I do care about Trump's phone calls. I'm not defending his actions, or lack thereof. I'm simply saying he said he would release his tax returns when Clinton released her emails. I care about both. I don't think either side of the political spectrum benefits from all the secrecy. You can have your privacy, but you can't have secrecy, if that makes any sense. I am sick of the hypocrisy, secrets, lies, and games both sides of the political spectrum rely on to get elected to make sure that they win, but America doesn't. It's why I want to tear the whole system down piece by piece, and replace it with something all of America will benefit from.

Well we are no longer in an election campaign, so I'm not convinced that those emails are entirely relevant. Frankly, I significantly doubt there would have been anything major in there, but maybe that's my confirmation bias. But I am getting irked by the constant nagging about how Hillary is corrupt and how we still need to see her emails. Well, guess the fuck what, she lost! She's a private citizen now. If you were really concerned about the issues surrounding Hillary as you claim, then you would have moved on and be asking about Trump and his administration. If you do care about Trump's phone calls and Mike Pence's emails, why the fuck are we still discussing Hillary Clinton?

The Republicans have made Hillary out to be the enemy for 25 years, and now that she has finally been vanquished, the hard left and the hard right have no idea how to function. Hillary Clinton has always been painted as corrupt - and if she truly was as bent as the GOP have been banging on about for 25 years, all those fucking Congressional hearings would have found something by now. If Hillary was corrupt as she is made out to be, she wouldn't have faced an FBI investigation into her emails. If Hillary was as corrupt as she is made out to be, she most certainly would not have lost to the Screaming Carrot Demon. Andrew Weiner is literally living, breathing proof that the Clinton's don't kill people who become liabilities to their global cabal.


  
 
Unread postPosted: 15th March, 2017, 9:27 pm 
Owner/Administrator
User avatar
Online

First name: René
Posts: 15957
Likes received: 121

Joined: 20th December, 2007, 10:42 pm
Location: South Yorkshire
Country: United Kingdom (gb)
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
I do want those tax returns unleashed. I do care about those emails. I do care about Trump's phone calls. I'm not defending his actions, or lack thereof. I'm simply saying he said he would release his tax returns when Clinton released her emails. I care about both. I don't think either side of the political spectrum benefits from all the secrecy. You can have your privacy, but you can't have secrecy, if that makes any sense. I am sick of the hypocrisy, secrets, lies, and games both sides of the political spectrum rely on to get elected to make sure that they win, but America doesn't. It's why I want to tear the whole system down piece by piece, and replace it with something all of America will benefit from.

Image

1 from TheBrunswickian


  
 
Unread postPosted: 15th March, 2017, 9:31 pm 
Jesslut, Community Ambassador
User avatar
Offline

First name: Jesse
Posts: 2161
Likes received: 203

Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Team: Westeros
Pity wrote:
I am so tired of these judges abusing their power. You all know that the judge's block was a political move and not one based on a question of the legality of the law. It is within the President's power to block immigration from specific countries.

Donald Trump wrote:
You don't think this was done by a judge for political reasons do you? This ruling makes us look weak - which, by the way, we no longer are, believe me.

that critical analysis of the situation tho


  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th March, 2017, 10:43 am 
The Shady Moderator
User avatar
Offline

First name: Des
Posts: 9887
Likes received: 199

Joined: 16th September, 2013, 2:02 am
Country: United States (us)
Pity wrote:
I am so tired of these judges abusing their power. You all know that the judge's block was a political move and not one based on a question of the legality of the law. It is within the President's power to block immigration from specific countries.


And it is within the Federal Judges' power to check the President.

Image


  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th March, 2017, 12:41 pm 
hotty
User avatar
Offline

First name: Danny
Posts: 1688
Likes received: 168

Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Salem, AK
Country: United States (us)

Team: Middle Earth
Dessy wrote:
Pity wrote:
I am so tired of these judges abusing their power. You all know that the judge's block was a political move and not one based on a question of the legality of the law. It is within the President's power to block immigration from specific countries.


And it is within the Federal Judges' power to check the President.

Image



Yeah, but they are abusing that power. They know it's legal, but they don't care. I guess liberals only care about government injustice when it fits their agenda. Stupid Obama appointees, smh.

Also, how tf is that jpeg a gif?


  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th March, 2017, 1:31 pm 
Owner/Administrator
User avatar
Online

First name: René
Posts: 15957
Likes received: 121

Joined: 20th December, 2007, 10:42 pm
Location: South Yorkshire
Country: United Kingdom (gb)
Pity wrote:
Also, how tf is that jpeg a gif?

It's a GIF but someone renamed it so it ends in .jpg. Your browser doesn't actually care what the filename extension is; it just checks what kind of data is in the file.


  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th March, 2017, 4:01 pm 
The Shady Moderator
User avatar
Offline

First name: Des
Posts: 9887
Likes received: 199

Joined: 16th September, 2013, 2:02 am
Country: United States (us)
Pity wrote:
Yeah, but they are abusing that power. They know it's legal, but they don't care. I guess liberals only care about government injustice when it fits their agenda. Stupid Obama appointees, smh.

Also, how tf is that jpeg a gif?


I mean you don't see me complaining about a federal appeal court ruling that workplace discrimination on the basic of sexual orientation is not prohibited. Because I understand that laws haven't really been passed to allow for protections based on sexual orientation.

Do you even understand why Hawaii or Maryland stopped it outside of "playing politics"? Do you understand that these people are appointed for their studies on law and also have the interests of the people they represent in mind? It is their interpretation that the ban or part of the ban would violate the Constitution. If you don't like it, you can go through law school yourself and find you a seat in one of these courts (or challenge it yourself). Image

Also Trump still needs to fill up near 100 vacancies himself :tea:


  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th March, 2017, 4:04 pm 
Member
Offline

First name: Nate
Posts: 434
Likes received: 37

Joined: 4th March, 2016, 11:42 pm
TheBrunswickian wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
GaycrazyBoi wrote:
Dessy wrote:
White House fired back before the hour

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/841811274174500866

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... 0m-in-2005

Quote:
The White House released some details of President Trump's income and paid taxes from 2005 Tuesday night, as MSNBC prepared to release the information in an evening broadcast.

Trump reported $150 million in income and $38 million paid in taxes, according to a statement from the White House.


I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. I think we should know who our president has in his pocket and whose pocket he is in. These should have been released months ago. Trump doesn't need to have a fit over something like a report that isn't illegal unless it is libelous.


Right? If there's nothing shady in them then just release them. The fact that we had debates and votes over just him releasing tax returns...


I mean, sure, you're entitled to privacy, but it's not like we are asking where every shred of information about you. Trump should have released his tax returns sooner. I mean, he did make a promise to release his taxes when Clinton released her emails, and if she were in office, I'm sure we would be asking for her emails, but she isn't in a position where we need to know who she has in her pocket, and whose pocket she is in. Trump is. Do I make any sense here?

Hillary Clinton released her tax returns all the way back to the 1970s.

And this issue of Hillary's emails. If you were really concerned about emails, why are we not talking about the fact Mike Pence's private email server got hacked, how White House staffers are reportedly using unsecured messaging services (which also happen to be violating the Presidential Records Act), that Trump is reportedly still using his personal phone, how Mar-a-Lago has very little security procedures compared to the White House, the information contained in Scott Pruitt's subpoenaed emails, and so fucking forth.

Do I want to know what was in those emails? *sigh* I guess. I mean... we haven't found anything in the previous ones - unless you consider Bono asking for a meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain corrupt.

When it comes to public figures, privacy isn't really an option. When you're running for the highest office in the land, you don't get to have secrets, things that are only yours. You have to surrender everything about yourself so that you can prove that you are worthy of service. And by not releasing your tax returns, when every single candidate has for decades, is questionable. Sure, in 2005, Trump paid $38 million in federal taxes. What about 2006? 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016? Hell, why don't I just say, I want all the tax returns dating back to the 1970s - like Hillary did.


I do want those tax returns unleashed. I do care about those emails. I do care about Trump's phone calls. I'm not defending his actions, or lack thereof. I'm simply saying he said he would release his tax returns when Clinton released her emails. I care about both. I don't think either side of the political spectrum benefits from all the secrecy. You can have your privacy, but you can't have secrecy, if that makes any sense. I am sick of the hypocrisy, secrets, lies, and games both sides of the political spectrum rely on to get elected to make sure that they win, but America doesn't. It's why I want to tear the whole system down piece by piece, and replace it with something all of America will benefit from.

Well we are no longer in an election campaign, so I'm not convinced that those emails are entirely relevant. Frankly, I significantly doubt there would have been anything major in there, but maybe that's my confirmation bias. But I am getting irked by the constant nagging about how Hillary is corrupt and how we still need to see her emails. Well, guess the fuck what, she lost! She's a private citizen now. If you were really concerned about the issues surrounding Hillary as you claim, then you would have moved on and be asking about Trump and his administration. If you do care about Trump's phone calls and Mike Pence's emails, why the fuck are we still discussing Hillary Clinton?

The Republicans have made Hillary out to be the enemy for 25 years, and now that she has finally been vanquished, the hard left and the hard right have no idea how to function. Hillary Clinton has always been painted as corrupt - and if she truly was as bent as the GOP have been banging on about for 25 years, all those fucking Congressional hearings would have found something by now. If Hillary was corrupt as she is made out to be, she wouldn't have faced an FBI investigation into her emails. If Hillary was as corrupt as she is made out to be, she most certainly would not have lost to the Screaming Carrot Demon. Andrew Weiner is literally living, breathing proof that the Clinton's don't kill people who become liabilities to their global cabal.


I replied to this before but it didn't send. Sorry.

I'll condense it. The Left and Right need someone to support, while simultaneously needing to tear down the opposing figurehead, and, when they succeed, prop another one up and let the old figurehead become obscure. The problem is that this election, the figurehead wasn't ready to be replaced.

I discuss her for the double standard at play. The Left and Right both break the same rules but largely ignore the rule breaking on their side and point it out in the opposition. It's a statement of when he said he would release his tax returns.

The emails are political and could expose some major shit, like corruption and collusion. We've seen the DNC leaks, let's see what she's hiding. If it's so innocent, why delete them, or withhold them? I don't think she is as bad as the Right claims or as good as the Left claims. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but nobody but HRC herself knows where it is.

I don't know how much or how little I buy into the Clinton Death List, but I know this, a lot of people have died in sketchy ways after pissing off the Clintons. I don't know if the Clintons are involved, and I do know this, the Clintons could kill someone off if they wanted to. I'm not saying they do, but I don't exactly think the Clintons aren't capable of murder. If they can silence rape allegations against Bill, then who knows what they are capable of?

I don't ignore Trump's recklessness, but I don't exactly look the other way with Clinton either. If Clinton will hold secrets that the American people deserve to know and lie, can we trust her? I don't think I can trust her if she won't show us she has nothing in those emails to hide.

Like Dessy said about Trump's taxes...

Dessy wrote:
Right? If there's nothing shady in them then just release them. The fact that we had debates and votes over just him releasing tax returns...


If there's nothing shady, release all of them, not just the edited version, like Nixon tried to pull with Watergate. We've had debates and votes over her emails. Just fucking release them already!


  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th March, 2017, 7:29 pm 
hotty
User avatar
Offline

First name: Danny
Posts: 1688
Likes received: 168

Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Salem, AK
Country: United States (us)

Team: Middle Earth
Judge Derrick Watson stated: "The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.

As you can see, nothing in his statement criticizes the constitutionality of the executive order. Instead, it is all based on political activism.

Broken down:

1. Creating a temporary halt on a select few nations does not create animus as the halt is not indefinite. In addition, current visa holders are allowed in.

2. It does not target Islam itself. If it did, Islam itself would be restricted and most, if not all, Muslim countries would be banned.

3. If it was a Muslim ban, countries like Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, and Comoros would also be banned too.

4. The EO is a strategic one and prevents terrorism from seeping in the US, which is 100% legal by our current laws. Iran funds terrorism. There is no real functioning government in Libya as it is torn by chaos and radicalism. Sudan is plagued with terrorist camps and rebel groups in the Darfur region. Yemen is currently in a civil war. Somalia is still embroiled with radicalism and terrorist organizations despite their government.

1 from GaycrazyBoi


  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th March, 2017, 8:46 pm 
The Shady Moderator
User avatar
Offline

First name: Des
Posts: 9887
Likes received: 199

Joined: 16th September, 2013, 2:02 am
Country: United States (us)
Pity wrote:
Judge Derrick Watson stated: "The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.

As you can see, nothing in his statement criticizes the constitutionality of the executive order. Instead, it is all based on political activism.

Broken down:

1. Creating a temporary halt on a select few nations does not create animus as the halt is not indefinite. In addition, current visa holders are allowed in.

2. It does not target Islam itself. If it did, Islam itself would be restricted and most, if not all, Muslim countries would be banned.

3. If it was a Muslim ban, countries like Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, and Comoros would also be banned too.

4. The EO is a strategic one and prevents terrorism from seeping in the US, which is 100% legal by our current laws. Iran funds terrorism. There is no real functioning government in Libya as it is torn by chaos and radicalism. Sudan is plagued with terrorist camps and rebel groups in the Darfur region. Yemen is currently in a civil war. Somalia is still embroiled with radicalism and terrorist organizations despite their government.


Welp you showed me

Image


  
 
Unread postPosted: 17th March, 2017, 4:03 am 
Member
User avatar
Offline

First name: Lucas
Posts: 272
Likes received: 11

Joined: 16th September, 2016, 5:02 pm
Location: Italian vagabond on pilgrimage
Pity, current Visa/Green Card holders are allowed in BECAUSE of the judges. Trump's order blocked them as well. Look up your facts.

Banning Iran was publicity stunt to gain favor with Israel. I have a bridge to sell you if you think otherwise. There is not a single terrorist in history with Iranian origins. Therefore we say "Iran is funding terrorists".


  
 
Unread postPosted: 17th March, 2017, 1:03 pm 
Sir Conor the Incompetent
User avatar
Offline

Posts: 310
Likes received: 59

Joined: 14th December, 2013, 11:21 pm
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)
Lightbringer wrote:
Pity, current Visa/Green Card holders are allowed in BECAUSE of the judges. Trump's order blocked them as well. Look up your facts.

Banning Iran was publicity stunt to gain favor with Israel. I have a bridge to sell you if you think otherwise. There is not a single terrorist in history with Iranian origins. Therefore we say "Iran is funding terrorists".

You're talking about a country that was using child soldiers to clear minefields thirty years ago. Yeah, I'm not buying "There is not a single terrorist in history with Iranian origins".

1 from GaycrazyBoi


  
 
Unread postPosted: 17th March, 2017, 3:28 pm 
Member
User avatar
Offline

First name: Casey
Posts: 684
Likes received: 4

Joined: 15th February, 2013, 4:32 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States (us)
Pity wrote:
Judge Derrick Watson stated: "The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.

As you can see, nothing in his statement criticizes the constitutionality of the executive order. Instead, it is all based on political activism.

Broken down:

1. Creating a temporary halt on a select few nations does not create animus as the halt is not indefinite. In addition, current visa holders are allowed in.

2. It does not target Islam itself. If it did, Islam itself would be restricted and most, if not all, Muslim countries would be banned.

3. If it was a Muslim ban, countries like Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, and Comoros would also be banned too.

4. The EO is a strategic one and prevents terrorism from seeping in the US, which is 100% legal by our current laws. Iran funds terrorism. There is no real functioning government in Libya as it is torn by chaos and radicalism. Sudan is plagued with terrorist camps and rebel groups in the Darfur region. Yemen is currently in a civil war. Somalia is still embroiled with radicalism and terrorist organizations despite their government.

The judge stated that one doesn't have to target an entire demographic/group at once to discriminate against them. Rudy Giuliani admitted that Trump came to him and asked him to legally find a way to create a travel ban that targets Muslims. It's difficult to say it's not Trump's intention to ban Muslims with everything he's said. He lied about witnessing Muslims cheer on 9/11 in New Jersey, and during his presidential campaign, he said that Muslims should be banned until Congress or whoever can figure out "what the hell is going on".


  
 
Unread postPosted: 17th March, 2017, 4:21 pm 
Member
Offline

First name: Nate
Posts: 434
Likes received: 37

Joined: 4th March, 2016, 11:42 pm
bluesunstorm wrote:
Pity wrote:
Judge Derrick Watson stated: "The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.

As you can see, nothing in his statement criticizes the constitutionality of the executive order. Instead, it is all based on political activism.

Broken down:

1. Creating a temporary halt on a select few nations does not create animus as the halt is not indefinite. In addition, current visa holders are allowed in.

2. It does not target Islam itself. If it did, Islam itself would be restricted and most, if not all, Muslim countries would be banned.

3. If it was a Muslim ban, countries like Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, and Comoros would also be banned too.

4. The EO is a strategic one and prevents terrorism from seeping in the US, which is 100% legal by our current laws. Iran funds terrorism. There is no real functioning government in Libya as it is torn by chaos and radicalism. Sudan is plagued with terrorist camps and rebel groups in the Darfur region. Yemen is currently in a civil war. Somalia is still embroiled with radicalism and terrorist organizations despite their government.

The judge stated that one doesn't have to target an entire demographic/group at once to discriminate against them. Rudy Giuliani admitted that Trump came to him and asked him to legally find a way to create a travel ban that targets Muslims. It's difficult to say it's not Trump's intention to ban Muslims with everything he's said. He lied about witnessing Muslims cheer on 9/11 in New Jersey, and during his presidential campaign, he said that Muslims should be banned until Congress or whoever can figure out "what the hell is going on".


So, the exact same thing Obama did is now bad. Except now they made comments you don't like, the ban is now racist/sexist/Islamophobic etc. and should not be allowed because you don't like what he said. This isn't how a country should work


  
 
 Page 222 of 226 [ 4501 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226  Next

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


Recently active

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Seznam [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


Terms of use | Privacy policy

phpBB skin developed by: phpBB Headquarters
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group