Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
gtn130 wrote:Popper did it ever occur to you that people who are opposed to the Muslim Ban are generally people who live in close proximity to immigrants and aren't afraid of them?
popper wrote:gtn130 wrote:Popper did it ever occur to you that people who are opposed to the Muslim Ban are generally people who live in close proximity to immigrants and aren't afraid of them?
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
Federal immigration law undeniably gives the president broad authority to bar people from coming into the U.S., stating that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions. But lawsuits across the country have alleged that Trump’s particular order ran afoul of the Constitution in that it intentionally discriminated against Muslims.
At a hearing Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer August Flentje vigorously disputed that the measure was intended to target Muslims. In their ruling, the judges did not reveal their opinion on that question, though they noted Washington and Minnesota had “offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.”
gtn130 wrote:popper wrote:gtn130 wrote:Popper did it ever occur to you that people who are opposed to the Muslim Ban are generally people who live in close proximity to immigrants and aren't afraid of them?
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
LOLFederal immigration law undeniably gives the president broad authority to bar people from coming into the U.S., stating that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions. But lawsuits across the country have alleged that Trump’s particular order ran afoul of the Constitution in that it intentionally discriminated against Muslims.
At a hearing Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer August Flentje vigorously disputed that the measure was intended to target Muslims. In their ruling, the judges did not reveal their opinion on that question, though they noted Washington and Minnesota had “offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.”
Judges noted in their ruling that Trump calling it a 'Muslim ban' impacted the result, and yet you're here to tell me it's not a Muslim ban, so my "premise is unsupportable" lololol try again popper
gtn130 wrote:popper wrote:gtn130 wrote:Popper did it ever occur to you that people who are opposed to the Muslim Ban are generally people who live in close proximity to immigrants and aren't afraid of them?
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
LOLFederal immigration law undeniably gives the president broad authority to bar people from coming into the U.S., stating that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions. But lawsuits across the country have alleged that Trump’s particular order ran afoul of the Constitution in that it intentionally discriminated against Muslims.
At a hearing Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer August Flentje vigorously disputed that the measure was intended to target Muslims. In their ruling, the judges did not reveal their opinion on that question, though they noted Washington and Minnesota had “offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.”
Judges noted in their ruling that Trump calling it a 'Muslim ban' impacted the result, and yet you're here to tell me it's not a Muslim ban, so my "premise is unsupportable" lololol try again popper
DECEMBER 2015
The real estate mogul-turned-presidential candidate shakes up the race when he announces that he wants to bar foreign Muslims from entering the country following the shooting in San Bernardino, California. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," his campaign says in a release.
JANUARY 2016
Trump sticks with his Muslim ban. During Fox Business Network's GOP debate, moderator Maria Bartiromo asks Trump whether he's heard anything that's made him want to rethink his "comments about banning Muslims from entering the country." "No," Trump responds to laughter and applause. "Look, we have to stop with political correctness. We have to get down to creating a country that's not going to have the kind of problems that we've had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers, with the — with the shootings in California, with all the problems all over the world. ... We have to find out what's going on."
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said in an interview on Saturday that President Trump had previously asked him about legally implementing a "Muslim ban."
President Donald Trump said in a new interview Friday that persecuted Christians will be given priority over other refugees seeking to enter the United States, saying they have been "horribly treated."
The list does not include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization does business, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In financial disclosure forms during the presidential campaign, he listed two companies with dealings in Egypt and eight with business in Saudi Arabia. And in the UAE, the Trump Organization is partnering with a local billionaire to develop two golf courses in Dubai.
Experts on terrorism tell us that since 9/11 no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the seven countries for which Trump’s executive order temporarily suspends admission. Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
But there have been at least three non-deadly cases in which the perpetrator was connected to Iran or Somalia.
popper wrote:gtn130 wrote:popper wrote:
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
LOLFederal immigration law undeniably gives the president broad authority to bar people from coming into the U.S., stating that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions. But lawsuits across the country have alleged that Trump’s particular order ran afoul of the Constitution in that it intentionally discriminated against Muslims.
At a hearing Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer August Flentje vigorously disputed that the measure was intended to target Muslims. In their ruling, the judges did not reveal their opinion on that question, though they noted Washington and Minnesota had “offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.”
Judges noted in their ruling that Trump calling it a 'Muslim ban' impacted the result, and yet you're here to tell me it's not a Muslim ban, so my "premise is unsupportable" lololol try again popper
How on earth can it be a Muslim ban when 9 out of 10 Muslims are not banned?
popper wrote:gtn130 wrote:popper wrote:
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
LOLFederal immigration law undeniably gives the president broad authority to bar people from coming into the U.S., stating that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions. But lawsuits across the country have alleged that Trump’s particular order ran afoul of the Constitution in that it intentionally discriminated against Muslims.
At a hearing Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer August Flentje vigorously disputed that the measure was intended to target Muslims. In their ruling, the judges did not reveal their opinion on that question, though they noted Washington and Minnesota had “offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.”
Judges noted in their ruling that Trump calling it a 'Muslim ban' impacted the result, and yet you're here to tell me it's not a Muslim ban, so my "premise is unsupportable" lololol try again popper
How on earth can it be a Muslim ban when 9 out of 10 Muslims are not banned?
montestewart wrote:popper wrote:payitforward wrote:&, I forgot to mention, graphs of %s of literacy over time will be skewed by changes in the test & in who's being tested!
I have textbooks and classroom tests from the 1940's that indicate to me that our public education system back then was much more rigorous than it is today. Latin, geography, poetry ...... not sure how that connects to your posts PIF but it seems it might.
I have my teacher's note to my parents from the 1920s. Mrs. DeMarco repeatedly misspelled "bastard"
bealwithit wrote:gtn130 wrote:popper wrote:
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
LOLFederal immigration law undeniably gives the president broad authority to bar people from coming into the U.S., stating that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions. But lawsuits across the country have alleged that Trump’s particular order ran afoul of the Constitution in that it intentionally discriminated against Muslims.
At a hearing Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer August Flentje vigorously disputed that the measure was intended to target Muslims. In their ruling, the judges did not reveal their opinion on that question, though they noted Washington and Minnesota had “offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.”
Judges noted in their ruling that Trump calling it a 'Muslim ban' impacted the result, and yet you're here to tell me it's not a Muslim ban, so my "premise is unsupportable" lololol try again popper
Sigh...
As we all know Trump first referred to it as a "shutdown of Muslims entering the US" and then was asked a month after whether he would take that back.
http://fortune.com/2016/06/28/donald-trump-muslim-ban/DECEMBER 2015
The real estate mogul-turned-presidential candidate shakes up the race when he announces that he wants to bar foreign Muslims from entering the country following the shooting in San Bernardino, California. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," his campaign says in a release.
JANUARY 2016
Trump sticks with his Muslim ban. During Fox Business Network's GOP debate, moderator Maria Bartiromo asks Trump whether he's heard anything that's made him want to rethink his "comments about banning Muslims from entering the country." "No," Trump responds to laughter and applause. "Look, we have to stop with political correctness. We have to get down to creating a country that's not going to have the kind of problems that we've had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers, with the — with the shootings in California, with all the problems all over the world. ... We have to find out what's going on."
Then someone smarter than him made told him that calling it a Muslim ban would be a bad thing to do.
However, I'm sure we all saw Giuliani admit on Fox that Trump came to him asking how to do a Muslim ban legally, thus the newly minted "Travel" ban.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legallyFormer New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said in an interview on Saturday that President Trump had previously asked him about legally implementing a "Muslim ban."
Then Trump said this...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/President Donald Trump said in a new interview Friday that persecuted Christians will be given priority over other refugees seeking to enter the United States, saying they have been "horribly treated."
If you think fake news CNN is taking what he said out of context, here's the clip with the interviewer's question where he specifically does ask whether Trump would give Christians priority. Trump says yes.
http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees
So Christians will get priority over Muslims in this extreme vetting process (despite the extensive vetting they already get)... doesn't sound a little weird to you? If you subscribe to one religion, you're good, the other one, whoa man hold on there!
It's obvious what the ban is really about and calling it a travel ban is simple re-branding to avoid controversy about the name. Knowing an actual "complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the US wasn't a realistic policy proposal, they used the 7 countries the Obama administration had already targeted themselves as "countries of concern" to get what they could, despite no one from those countries actually having committed a deadly terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Bannon and Flynn were surely in Trump's ear on this one. Then of course the little gem that everyone has already forgotten about:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/The list does not include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization does business, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In financial disclosure forms during the presidential campaign, he listed two companies with dealings in Egypt and eight with business in Saudi Arabia. And in the UAE, the Trump Organization is partnering with a local billionaire to develop two golf courses in Dubai.
Saudi Arabia not being included in this ban is laughable considering the logic the Trump administration is going off of. 9/11 anyone?
This is about the best you've got for your argument.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/Experts on terrorism tell us that since 9/11 no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the seven countries for which Trump’s executive order temporarily suspends admission. Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
But there have been at least three non-deadly cases in which the perpetrator was connected to Iran or Somalia.
It would be up for debate whether three non-deadly attacks warrant a total travel ban on these 7 countries. I would be on the side of no.
popper wrote:gtn130 wrote:Popper did it ever occur to you that people who are opposed to the Muslim Ban are generally people who live in close proximity to immigrants and aren't afraid of them?
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
payitforward wrote:popper wrote:gtn130 wrote:Popper did it ever occur to you that people who are opposed to the Muslim Ban are generally people who live in close proximity to immigrants and aren't afraid of them?
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
You know, Popper, if you misspell "affected," indicating that you don't understand the difference between that word and the very different word "effected," nate is going to think you are some dumb person not of the "white" "race."
Moreover, the point isn't whether the ban would have affected all Muslims but whether it would have affected those it did affect because they are Muslim.
Thank God for the American judicial system, btw.
Did anyone catch the braying jackass's tweet in response to the court ruling: "I'll see you in court," he wrote. Like, you know, you just beat me at checkers, & I respond "See you at the checkerboard." Nice to know that nothing whatever gets through to this foaming at the mouth dimwit.
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . .
-Martin Niemoeller
payitforward wrote:montestewart wrote:popper wrote:
I have textbooks and classroom tests from the 1940's that indicate to me that our public education system back then was much more rigorous than it is today. Latin, geography, poetry ...... not sure how that connects to your posts PIF but it seems it might.
I have my teacher's note to my parents from the 1920s. Mrs. DeMarco repeatedly misspelled "bastard"
Every generation views the ones preceding it as having morals, standards, commitments, you name it, that are now missing. That's called a "trope." You can find it over 100s of years, 1000s actually. Pure & simple, it doesn't mean a thing. Nothing. In this or any case.
This thread is so tiresome. Above all because of the complete nonsense on virtually every subject from "IQ" to "job loss" to the value of protectionism to "races" and so forth. I wish there was a way to put a thread on "ignore" the way you can a person. As it is, because it's there, it's hard to ignore.
There isn't a thing which the braying jackass now sitting where we usually have a President has "promised" to the benefit of anyone but himself & people of his ilk that he will be able come through on. The ordinary people who voted for him as some kind of "change agent," i.e. because they think he'll grow manufacturing jobs, etc. will get no benefit of that kind whatever. & as to national security, he's already endangered it, made it worse, & you can look for more of the same.
I could start w/ the claim that IQ tests measure intelligence, meaning that if blacks score lower than whites on IQ tests one should conclude they are less intelligent than whites. You can build a computer that does well on IQ tests, & if you can get a computer to do something well you can be sure it has nothing to do with intelligence.
Or the claim that a tariff or tax on e.g. car parts imported from Mexico would benefit American manufacturing workers -- a truly idiotic idea, since partly the tariff would wind up in a higher price on a car, partly it would be negated in weakening the peso, and ultimately -- given the weaker peso -- it would hurt American exports to Mexico and therefore eliminate any trade balance benefit sought by the braying jackass calling for the tariff/tax.
Ditto the idea of bringing manufacturing back from China. Guess what? The number of Chinese manufacturing workers has declined by 25% since 1996. Any guesses as to why that is? Because factories are being automated at a rapid rate. An increasing rate, increasing right now, let me add.
I could go on, but the truth is I'm just venting. Talking about facts or actual issues in this thread is a waste of time; anything you add simply encounters the ideological commitments of nate & others who share them. At which point they get bent out of shape by that force field.
I was once a radical; in fact there was a time I'd have described myself as a "Marxist." It was before most of you were born. I don't regret it; I was young. I hope some of you know the old saw "Anyone who isn't a radical at 20 lacks a heart; anyone who is still a radical at 40 lacks a brain."
You can imagine the place on the political spectrum where that statement originated, right? It's usually credited to Thiers, someone whose name I am confident not a one of you on this board has ever heard mentioned.
There's something to it of course -- certainly the first half as well as the overall contrast of youthful boldness and the greater carefulness of older folks. I'm certainly no radical any more, not in that sense at least. Indeed, I'd call the braying jackass in the White House a radical, as I would Karl Rove and his gang of lowlifes who formulated the gerrymandering of the electoral process to produce the radical result we have.
I was about to stop a few paragraphs ago, wasn't I? But I didn't. I'll content myself with one further observation: nate makes the claim that people of different "races" prefer to live with their same "race" not other "races." I assume he thinks black ghettos are the product of such preferences. I assume that he also thinks the covenants that kept Jews like me & my family out of certain suburbs is the product of these preferences as well. & that there are Chinatowns in American cities because that's what the Chinese preferred. Or, to go a bit further back, anti-Irish covenants in the 1840s. Or the original communities from which the term "ghetto" derives.
What a hateful moment this is. Those of you who support it ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I don't have the power to call thunder & lightning down on you, the wrath of God. But I don't need to. You're already calling it down on yourselves, & for every error & idiocy you applaud or even desire, I can assure you that you will pay the full price. Unfortunately you'll have made the rest of us pay as well.
popper wrote:gtn130 wrote:Popper did it ever occur to you that people who are opposed to the Muslim Ban are generally people who live in close proximity to immigrants and aren't afraid of them?
Your premise is unsupportable. It's not a Muslim ban. I think approx 90% of Muslims worldwide are not effected by the temporary ban on seven countries.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
payitforward wrote:Moreover, the point isn't whether the ban would have affected all Muslims but whether it would have affected those it did affect because they are Muslim.
Thank God for the American judicial system, btw.
Did anyone catch the braying jackass's tweet in response to the court ruling: "I'll see you in court," he wrote. Like, you know, you just beat me at checkers, & I respond "See you at the checkerboard."
long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:payitforward wrote:montestewart wrote:I have my teacher's note to my parents from the 1920s. Mrs. DeMarco repeatedly misspelled "bastard"
Every generation views the ones preceding it as having morals, standards, commitments, you name it, that are now missing. That's called a "trope." You can find it over 100s of years, 1000s actually. Pure & simple, it doesn't mean a thing. Nothing. In this or any case.
This thread is so tiresome. Above all because of the complete nonsense on virtually every subject from "IQ" to "job loss" to the value of protectionism to "races" and so forth. I wish there was a way to put a thread on "ignore" the way you can a person. As it is, because it's there, it's hard to ignore.
There isn't a thing which the braying jackass now sitting where we usually have a President has "promised" to the benefit of anyone but himself & people of his ilk that he will be able come through on. The ordinary people who voted for him as some kind of "change agent," i.e. because they think he'll grow manufacturing jobs, etc. will get no benefit of that kind whatever. & as to national security, he's already endangered it, made it worse, & you can look for more of the same.
I could start w/ the claim that IQ tests measure intelligence, meaning that if blacks score lower than whites on IQ tests one should conclude they are less intelligent than whites. You can build a computer that does well on IQ tests, & if you can get a computer to do something well you can be sure it has nothing to do with intelligence.
Or the claim that a tariff or tax on e.g. car parts imported from Mexico would benefit American manufacturing workers -- a truly idiotic idea, since partly the tariff would wind up in a higher price on a car, partly it would be negated in weakening the peso, and ultimately -- given the weaker peso -- it would hurt American exports to Mexico and therefore eliminate any trade balance benefit sought by the braying jackass calling for the tariff/tax.
Ditto the idea of bringing manufacturing back from China. Guess what? The number of Chinese manufacturing workers has declined by 25% since 1996. Any guesses as to why that is? Because factories are being automated at a rapid rate. An increasing rate, increasing right now, let me add.
I could go on, but the truth is I'm just venting. Talking about facts or actual issues in this thread is a waste of time; anything you add simply encounters the ideological commitments of nate & others who share them. At which point they get bent out of shape by that force field.
I was once a radical; in fact there was a time I'd have described myself as a "Marxist." It was before most of you were born. I don't regret it; I was young. I hope some of you know the old saw "Anyone who isn't a radical at 20 lacks a heart; anyone who is still a radical at 40 lacks a brain."
You can imagine the place on the political spectrum where that statement originated, right? It's usually credited to Thiers, someone whose name I am confident not a one of you on this board has ever heard mentioned.
There's something to it of course -- certainly the first half as well as the overall contrast of youthful boldness and the greater carefulness of older folks. I'm certainly no radical any more, not in that sense at least. Indeed, I'd call the braying jackass in the White House a radical, as I would Karl Rove and his gang of lowlifes who formulated the gerrymandering of the electoral process to produce the radical result we have.
I was about to stop a few paragraphs ago, wasn't I? But I didn't. I'll content myself with one further observation: nate makes the claim that people of different "races" prefer to live with their same "race" not other "races." I assume he thinks black ghettos are the product of such preferences. I assume that he also thinks the covenants that kept Jews like me & my family out of certain suburbs is the product of these preferences as well. & that there are Chinatowns in American cities because that's what the Chinese preferred. Or, to go a bit further back, anti-Irish covenants in the 1840s. Or the original communities from which the term "ghetto" derives.
What a hateful moment this is. Those of you who support it ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I don't have the power to call thunder & lightning down on you, the wrath of God. But I don't need to. You're already calling it down on yourselves, & for every error & idiocy you applaud or even desire, I can assure you that you will pay the full price. Unfortunately you'll have made the rest of us pay as well.
This post is beyond great PIF. Thank you.
JWizmentality wrote:long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:payitforward wrote:a good ass post
This post is beyond great PIF. Thank you.
HOF post. Well stated. Sums up everything nicely. Pitty Ruzious has jumped ship. I for one am also tired of the pseudo intellectual drivel on this thread and will stay my "elitist" behind away from it.
Peace!!