Immigration Ban

#628
#628
n_huffhines said:
It's been established for 50 years that you can't discriminate against immigrants (but you can discriminate against refugees) based on nationality.

Golf's interpretation is that you can't have quotas based on nationality, but I don't think that he understands that 0 is a quota.
Click to expand...

That's one of our major problems - any quack in a black robe can make law. That is contradictory to and in conflict with the concept of three branches of government; the legislative branch (for all it's worth) is supposed to make law and the judicial branch is supposed to ensure the law was followed - not make or remake it. We get to elect to our "representatives" while many quacks in black robes are appointed - some for life.

The fact is that you can decide who you let in your house and what rules apply while they are there. The country has the same right - just that the process is messier and more politically entangled.

Here's a little thought - the laws of the land may apply to someone within the borders; but do all the rights, privileges, and protections extend to anyone within the borders (legally or illegally), and why? Then by extension should the same apply to someone not even here? What right exactly allows one judge to decide who and how many immigrants we may permit - and what criteria are allowed for selection?
 
#629
#629
n_huffhines said:
Wait, you think the intent of the founders was to grow government to its current size?
Click to expand...

What frikin planet are you from. Some days you're dumber than a sack of rocks.

Your only intention was belittlement with that straw man comment. If you deny it, you're trapped in your own lie.

I'm fully aware of how, due to the nature of political thought between 1778 and the Civil War; a US citizen of the original colonies, then the antebellum states, considered themselves, say Tennesseeans, or Virginians .. much more than United States citizens. They saw the federal government as a neccessary framework for the common defense. But, given the ENTIRE BODY of the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the founders DID NOT see government as static. They did provide for admendments. And they did foresee the possibility of and include safeguards against tyranical government.

I'm all for reducing our big government, a lot. I'm NOT for throwing it out and letting the nutjobs who clamor for privatization of the bulk of government functions.

I am militantly opposed to those who would try to reform our government Under the abjectly GOOFY BELIEF the (NAP) Non Agression Principle will maintain a healthy land in which to live and bear children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#630
#630
FLVOL_79 said:
So, and honest question, how does small government protect it?


Personally, I see a small government plan involving landmines hundreds of yards deep.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the landmines. A pretty effective deterrent, and they generally reduce recidivism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#631
#631
n_huffhines said:
What danger? You scared of lightning?
Click to expand...

I am.... I had it strike so close to me that the hair on my arms stood up and I was completely blinded by the flash..... it was almost as if I was surrounded by the flash.... and immediately there was a huuuge explosion of thunder. When I see lightning now..... I get my rear in the house
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#633
#633
Carl Pickens said:
I am.... I had it strike so close to me that the hair on my arms stood up and I was completely blinded by the flash..... it was almost as if I was surrounded by the flash.... and immediately there was a huuuge explosion of thunder. When I see lightning now..... I get my rear in the house
Click to expand...

I'm with you, I saw a hundred year old oak explode into toothpicks.

Go inside.
 
#635
#635
n_huffhines said:
It's been established for 50 years that you can't discriminate against immigrants (but you can discriminate against refugees) based on nationality.

Golf's interpretation is that you can't have quotas based on nationality, but I don't think that he understands that 0 is a quota.
Click to expand...

Ban all refugees then. Problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#636
#636
Carl Pickens said:
I am.... I had it strike so close to me that the hair on my arms stood up and I was completely blinded by the flash..... it was almost as if I was surrounded by the flash.... and immediately there was a huuuge explosion of thunder. When I see lightning now..... I get my rear in the house
Click to expand...

Hell yeah. I was playing golf once, back in the days of metal spikes. We got chased off the course due to weather. When we thought it had cleared we just stepped outside to take a look. It was looking good and we figured another couple of minutes and they would let us resume play. Next thing I know, same thing, a big bright flash and instantly my spikes were sizzling under my feet and the hair on my legs stood straight out and felt it tingle all the way up the back of my neck with a simultaneous crash of thunder. Thought I had been hit for sure. The ensuing chaos of the Four Stooges trying to all fit through a single doorway to get back inside had to be pure comedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#637
#637
Thunder Good-Oil said:
SIAP

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu
Click to expand...

I read the text all the way down to 1 hour and 3 mins where he talks about illegals. Read it starting 63 mins. It is exactly what trump has said and will do.

That should be played on loop on trumps website for the libs. Over and over until they realize it. Stop villifying trump for the same policy you endorsed. Clinton is a hero to them. What gives?

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#638
#638
Vol737 said:
Hell yeah. I was playing golf once, back in the days of metal spikes. We got chased off the course due to weather. When we thought it had cleared we just stepped outside to take a look. It was looking good and we figured another couple of minutes and they would let us resume play. Next thing I know, same thing, a big bright flash and instantly my spikes were sizzling under my feet and the hair on my legs stood straight out and felt it tingle all the way up the back of my neck with a simultaneous crash of thunder. Thought I had been hit for sure. The ensuing chaos of the Four Stooges trying to all fit through a single doorway to get back inside had to be pure comedy.
Click to expand...

Unless it's happened to you there's no way to make someone understand it. I thought I was dead at first.
Then me and my buddy took off running to the truck..... threw our fishing gear in the back and got in..... then there was the usual ..... Holy **** !!....... WTF?!!!......

I read the next day that a picnic shelter above the dam where we had been fishing had been struck ..... killed three people.
 
#642
#642
Spicer now insisting it's not a ban even though he and Trump have both refereed to it as a ban multiple times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#643
#643
Carl Pickens said:
Unless it's happened to you there's no way to make someone understand it. I thought I was dead at first.
Then me and my buddy took off running to the truck..... threw our fishing gear in the back and got in..... then there was the usual ..... Holy **** !!....... WTF?!!!......

I read the next day that a picnic shelter above the dam where we had been fishing had been struck ..... killed three people.
Click to expand...

Had a big coonhound puppy who "helped" me do yardwork. Middle of summer, finished mowing and trying to get trimming finished before a storm hit. Had and electric trimmer.

As I plugged it in, ...it hit the chainlink fence in the back yard. Ball lightening rolled along it.

I heard it, saw it, felt it, smelled it, & jumped 10 feet & yelled it. All at once.

So did my poor dog who howled nonstop an ran to the garage and wedged under the steps into the house so I had to take them up to get him out. Vet said because his paws were on the ground he probably got quite the shock. After that he'd start freaking out if a storm was 60 miles away in Crossville and I'm in west Knox. The constant anxiety ruined him as a pet. UT animal behavior couldn't help.
 
#644
#644
luthervol said:
Spicer now insisting it's not a ban even though he and Trump have both refereed to it as a ban multiple times.
Click to expand...

What's your opinion on Obama's last minute wet foot dry foot Cuban policy just a couple of days before Jan 20? These Cubans aren't terrorist and not a fooking word from the media, yet Trump follows Obamas policy to a tee and he gets blasted for "banning" Muslims for 90 days and he gets hammered by the worthless POS MSM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#646
#646
For everybody pissing and moaning about the refugee EO, I can only guess that this section was overlooked while reading the actual document.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#647
#647
Sin City Vol said:
I thought polls were BS and can't be trusted??? The election taught us that
Click to expand...

Oh, this poll is garbage too; how many of the 41% that "strongly" or "somewhat" disagree with this temporary shift in procedure do you think are here legally/were born in this country?

Real Americans, by and large, support this initiative by President Trump.
 
#648
#648
Saw a Homeland Security Deputy something or other over Border issues of some kind laughing about how, the once again silly, MSM is locked on the word, "ban", like our Luther is.

When you consider how many Muslim countrys there are in the world vs the number on the watch list; to say the Ex.Order is anti Islam is ..well, I'll say bizzare. When the administration has said, over, and over, and over, and over...it's not permanent, but only for the time it takes to get a proper handle on vetting people from those countrys.

He found the MSM disingenous. Are you disingenous Luther? Do you just want to argue the semantics of "ban" vs "temporary ban" vs "moratorium" vs what ever other synonym fits.

It's very much like when KellyAnne, in the heat of a national interview made the unfortunate choice of words, "alternate facts" when "a different set of data" would have not set off a firestorm.

I believe it's called, "straining at a gnat", or possibly more appropriately, "take the log out of your own eye so you can see to remove the speck in mine."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#649
#649
Sin City Vol said:
I thought polls were BS and can't be trusted??? The election taught us that
Click to expand...

You're correct, they did. Now of course they can be close, like the election, but not entirely correct.

The main thing to take away is that the country as a whole isn't what you see on tv from the rallies, protests, "Support" on social media, celebrities, yadda yadda. I bet many people publicly protest but secretly feel it's a good idea.
 
#650
#650
Sin City Vol said:
I thought polls were BS and can't be trusted??? The election taught us that
Click to expand...

I don't think it is necessarily the polls that can't be trusted. It is the people interpreting them (e.g., the media) who can't be.

Hillary Clinton had a 2-4 percentage point lead in the national poll a few days before the election. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Polls in individual swing states, which is what people should have been paying sole attention to anyway (instead of that national poll), were all within the MoE.

The real BS was coming from places like the NYT, whose Upshot predictor never had Hillary below something like an 85% chance of winning. It was routinely in the mid-90s for Clinton. There was another predictor from Princeton that gave her a 97% chance of winning. I would love to know what inputs were being put into that model.

I'm just some dude in front of a computer, but even I could tell you that, simply based on publicly available swing state polling, Trump's chances of winning were much, much better than 5-15%. Probably something more like 35-40%. He was still an underdog, but not the long shot the media wanted you to believe.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top