I need to get this off my chest

[Gilligan]

Idk and I really don't care.

I'm not surprised. By either.

You can participate in the post-event analyses then.

 

[steppinthrax]

You hand-wringing lefties never have held the security of this nation in very high regard..yeah, we get that..it's very old news, kid.

So how many of those refugees have you volunteered to sponsor?

Remind me again which President did 9/11 happened under?

Okay

We hold security in high regard, we are simply not the illogical type of person. You know, cabin in the woods of WV with a cache of guns that somehow doesn't equate in any measurable sense to the crime rate of that area.

 

[Gilligan]

Remind me again which President did 9/11 happened under?

As I recall (correctly) it was Willy that missed/skipped opportunities to take out Bin Laden.

But we understand you would recommend that same course of action, so I'm sure you are good with it.

 

[steppinthrax]

Ok, first - we all remember this was supposed to be a *temporary* ban, right?
Does anyone remember why? Take your time. Why might we want to ban travel from a country like, say, Syria or Somalia BUT let IN people from places like Saudi, or Egypt, or Pakistan or Afghanistan? AND why would such a ban only be *temporary*? As in, ninety days? If the reason is they're extremely dangerous, why wouldn't we make it permanent?

Because to admit someone to this country, we need a proper vetting process, and we not only HAVE one for those other nations that we're good with, we have a relationship with those other nations such that we HAVE information about the persons entering or even better - THEY do some of the vetting for us. So Somalis haven't killed Americans - well, here - recently. So why might we want to improve the vetting process from Somalia? Because we don't have one and we have no relationship with their non-existent government.

The State Department previously had a list of nations of concern - https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

Strangely, they're pretty much the same countries. I don't think I see a huge difference between what Obama's administration was trying to do, and what Trump is trying to do, except ratchet up the process better.

Is it so hard a case to make?

Have you dealt with the immigration system yourself personally?

Have you tried to help someone (who was illegal) become legal?

Have you sponsored someone's visa, sat in on a visa interview filled out any immigration forms etc?

 

[Gilligan]

We hold security in high regard, we are simply not the illogical type of person.

LMAO. Yeah....

ISIS: "We are sending jihadis to kill you in your own country. We'll hide them amongst the refugees"
thrax: " IDK and I don't care".

;-)

 

[steppinthrax]

I googled "does the 14th Amendment apply to non-citizens" because that's what thrax had referenced in one of his replies.

A ton of results came up for illegal immigrants and foreign visitors but I didn't go to them because I was specifically looking for whether or not it applied to people who were not within our borders.

I don't know what was in those links cause it didn't address what I was looking for.

I'm not sure what you were looking for. The USC dosen't apply to people outside of our borders... I don't ever believe I said it did.....

 

[Gilligan]

Have you dealt with the immigration system yourself personally?

Have you sponsored someone's visa, sat in on a visa interview filled out any immigration forms etc?

Absolutely. Several, in fact.

 

[steppinthrax]

I was trying to refute thrax's point on the 14th Amendment being the basis to knock down the travel ban. Doing research, so I can try to come back with some facts, you know?

Nice try though at painting me for a liberal though.

If you disagree with many here, you are a liberal. Just like the several courts who disagree with Trump, they are now liberal judges. Liberal is a bad word around here. LOL Luckily this place dosen't represent the mass of SoMd, as I've bumped into several liberals in Calvert. Even those that I've strongly suspected to be conservative. Those that I know that are conservative, have at least common sense and a sense of logic.

 

[steppinthrax]

Absolutely. Several, in fact.

Was I asking you?

Learn to use Multi-Quote

 

[Gilligan]

Just like the several courts who disagree with Trump, they are now liberal judges.

No sport..it's a matter of public record how far-left those particular judges are. Long before Trump was elected. ;-)

Nice try at a deflection though.

 

[Gilligan]

Learn to use Multi-Quote

No. ;-)

 

[steppinthrax]

No sport..it's a matter of public record how far-left those particular judges are. Long before Trump was elected. ;-)

Nice try at a deflection though.

I like how to take one sentence from my post and use it out of context to make a point (without posting the entire thing). But I see this is your only methodology of argument.

 

[Gilligan]

I like how to take one sentence from my post and use it out of context to make a point (without posting the entire thing). But I see this is your only methodology of argument.

It's what is called a "counter point". You made an assertion and I countered it.

Your turn. ;-)

 

[steppinthrax]

It's what is called a "counter point". You made an assertion and I countered it.

Your turn. ;-)

It's called taking a sentence out of context from a post (used to reinforce another point further down). Then arguing against it. Any fool will see you as an unethical debater esp when you result into this mode early in the game and at such a low level. But I suspect it's your mo...

 

[This_person]

I wouldn't put too much weight on that situation; far-left judges have their decisions overturned quite often.

I've been thinking about this. When we want to convince people what is meant by the second amendment, we use quotes from the legislators/executives of the time-frame. We say, "if you want to know what they meant, look at what they said."

Now, they're taking what Trump said to determine what he meant. I don't like it, because I think you should go solely by what the E.O. says, but it's not exactly unprecedented.

 

[Gilligan]

If you disagree with many here, you are a liberal. Just like the several courts who disagree with Trump, they are now liberal judges.

No sport..it's a matter of public record how far-left those particular judges are. Long before Trump was elected. ;-)

Nice try at a deflection though.

 

[This_person]

If you disagree with many here, you are a liberal. Just like the several courts who disagree with Trump, they are now liberal judges.

Most were considered pretty liberal (as was Trump) long before Trump became 45.

Liberal is a bad word around here. LOL

If you mean it as "21st century political progressive" it should be a bad word anywhere. :shrug: SEVERE problems with that ideology.

If you mean it as 18/19th century liberty-lover, that's something else entirely.

 

[steppinthrax]

I've been thinking about this. When we want to convince people what is meant by the second amendment, we use quotes from the legislators/executives of the time-frame. We say, "if you want to know what they meant, look at what they said."

Now, they're taking what Trump said to determine what he meant. I don't like it, because I think you should go solely by what the E.O. says, but it's not exactly unprecedented.

The first EO was written poorly and it caused such issues since it was a gray area for those who were in actual transit while the EO became law (first one). I believe Breitbart was the framer of this for Trump. Part of the discussion in this EO was the fact that it was not clear and had ambiguity. This was one of the considerations for why that one was struck down.

 

[This_person]

The first EO was written poorly and it caused such issues since it was a gray area for those who were in actual transit while the EO became law (first one). I believe Breitbart was the framer of this for Trump. Part of the discussion in this EO was the fact that it was not clear and had ambiguity. This was one of the considerations for why that one was struck down.

As I recall, that was an issue but is certainly manageable (as in, change the dates).

Also as I recall, the main reason given was, "because of his rhetoric prior to the election, we think he's a racist bad guy and we don't like that so his order must be racist and bad." Or, something like that.

 

[steppinthrax]

As I recall, that was an issue but is certainly manageable (as in, change the dates).

Also as I recall, the main reason given was, "because of his rhetoric prior to the election, we think he's a racist bad guy and we don't like that so his order must be racist and bad." Or, something like that.

I don't believe and EO has such a mechanism. Likely a new EO would need to be issued or an Amendment to the first EO would need be done. But the point is his first gun shot missed target.

The legal basis was more/less "anything you say can be used against you in the court of law". His previous statements of "banning Muslims" was referenced along with his "text" version of the EO. The judges made the relationship between the two. Now this basis was demonstrated many times (at least by previous courts). Including his new and revised EO.

There is also the concept that he need to prove those persons are inherently dangerous. The countries he listed made little sense in those action. I believe the 9/11 hijackers didn't even come from any of those. There were several other stats regarding those countries and terrorism.