IGX

dead man walking wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote: American's interest. . . .

what is in america's interest?

How about we start with form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?

No mention I can find of Syrian Villagers that their brothers won't even take.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.

Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?
You could be right. I don't know yet. But I'd really like to see if you're capable of being so sanguine when you disagree with the outcome.

Consider the possibility, that our binary identity politics is an insufficient lens to describe the reality of the American Experience.

A couple obsevations. First RvW is a disastrously reasoned case. When the Supremes make up things in the Constitution to justify their policy preferences, craziness results. Having said that if Wade gets overturned I suspect abortionists will still be busy in blue states. Second I think my reading of the case, statues, and Constitution is pretty straightforward. I do expect this to go in the Administration's favor. But you could be right and it might not. If the Supremes can argue a tax is not a tax and that equal protection means laws in one state have to be the same in others, hell anything can happen. Third if it goes your way, I will be fine. Just like I would have handled a Clinton win without rioting, destroying other people's property, or caterwauling for weeks. I will keep on doing what I did the last 15 years just step up my precautions a bit more. And when the rapes and hackings start to occur, like in Europe where they have let these people in, I will help hold the folks responsible to account.

Do you really think unrestricted immigration is a great idea? I think you might want to check the ones and zeros in your politics. You seem to find great issues with my views and beliefs. I give zero fucks either way about yours or anybody else's. What I care about is security. I do not think Bush2 did a good job there and Obama absolutely made a worse mess of things. Don't care if Mexicans or Guatemalans or Ecuadoreans stay or go if they are not criminals. But the folks from the Mid East, based on my experience and interactions with them, validated by the experience of Europe, need to be severely limited. Or you need to carry when they are around.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.

Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?
You could be right. I don't know yet. But I'd really like to see if you're capable of being so sanguine when you disagree with the outcome.

Consider the possibility, that our binary identity politics is an insufficient lens to describe the reality of the American Experience.

You should really make some normative argument. You claim to be up to speed on the case and have read the relevant pleadings but you aren't moving the ball forward with your comments. They are devoid of any legal argumentation as to this specific case or Judicial Comity or even Constitutional Law in general. People who follow SCOTUS know they are capable of arguing any personal policy preference no matter how free from legal justification (roe, obergefell etc). You could at least offer something as to whether this is a good or bad thing. Or even some analysis as to how the ideologies of SCOTUS might condition a ruling. Or even some analysis as to the standing or statutory construction issues. Or maybe you could explain your last gnomic sentence...

Bitch please.

Thing one: I don't need to. I can watch it play out.

Thing two: I don't engage with slap dicks like yourself. You can be as plainly partisan as PL here but still have a perspective worth entertaining. You don't. Hell you don't even have a training log and you're not funny.

Thing three: I care a bit less about the outcome than the degree to which it makes people say stupid shit. That's the only front on which you've not been a disappointment.

What have I said about this issue has been stupid?

powerlifter54 wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.

Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?
You could be right. I don't know yet. But I'd really like to see if you're capable of being so sanguine when you disagree with the outcome.

Consider the possibility, that our binary identity politics is an insufficient lens to describe the reality of the American Experience.

A couple obsevations. First RvW is a disastrously reasoned case. When the Supremes make up things in the Constitution to justify their policy preferences, craziness results. Having said that if Wade gets overturned I suspect abortionists will still be busy in blue states. Second I think my reading of the case, statues, and Constitution is pretty straightforward. I do expect this to go in the Administration's favor.

So let's understand this. You are a critique of the the process when you don;t agree with the outcome. But if say the Travel "Ban" is upheld, you're down with the process as it works?

powerlifter54 wrote:
Do you really think unrestricted immigration is a great idea? I think you might want to check the ones and zeros in your politics. You seem to find great issues with my views and beliefs..

Do you actually think I said any such thing? Oi.

Once again. Jack I'm begging you. Get your head straight. Contemplate this. I think elements of the EO are very problematic...I'll put it as plainly as breaking your deals and not giving people due process to sort that shit out. There are parts of the EO I see no issue with whatsoever, in fact I can argue one might go much further with the support of congress. Does that make me a libtard? I think not. Reasonable Minds can differ on many issues and the most reasonable can at the very least make a cursory argument on behalf of something they disagree.

I could rattle off several dozen issues where I disagree with the method or the logic but I like the outcome and examples of the reverse.

I think Roe has problems, Keep in mind, I fully support abortion for every damn unwed Bible Belt Cheerleader who's got 300 bux and a bus pass....but I think Roe has Constitutional issues based on my reading of reasonable scholars who bring them up.

I despised the first EO that ran into my interests, Clinton's' designation of Grand Staircase Escalate...despite the fact I'm grateful it was put beyond the reach of extrication industries. Same could be said for his Road-less initiative which I thought was very correct on the science but disastrous for those of us who use public land for access to four wheeling and MTB and Dirt Bikes.

I think the ACLU was correct to defend the Nazi's who wanted to march in Illinois, I think Westboro is an affliction and most BLM propaganda is putrid...But I'm still in favor of free speech across the board for all three.

Where's Turd's old sig? The strength of Conservatives is that they are open to the idea that things are complex? Something like that?
Clear from your mind that notion that because you disagree with me, that makes me a "libtard" ...The chances your ideology is going to continuously align with one side or another is toxically stupid...you know that but you continue with these farcical responses nearly every time.

Whether I like the process or I don't, it is the process we have. I will not be taking to the streets either when I like or dislike the outcomes. In this case I don't think the law is hard to discern. I think some judges are looking for ways around the law and precedent. We will see.

What is a bit puzzling is you are a smart guy so you know that while their is a huge spectrum of beliefs, our choices Nationally come Down electorally to a Binary choice. You either pulled the lever for her or him. And now you oppose a very clear Presidential Power for the winner to use, and 2 of the 3 last Liberal Presidents used several times, because you don't like him. Not on the precedent, not on the law, but on some 3rd party rights sham to protect Starbucks and Udub so they can import people to work for them. I don't get that. Not in philosophy, just in action.

We probably agree on much of what you stated on those cases. I am a live and let live Constitutionalist, and lose zero sleep over BLM or Westboro.


And perhaps you are under the impression I care one way or the other on whether you are or re not a Lib, a green, a Seahawks fan, or a neocon. Like I said I don't care what people think. I generally have always had different views than the person besides me in the cockpit, pew, or picnic table. What matters to me is action and results. I have told Jack Myers many times on FB since Trump won that his craziness over the election is a waste of effort and I fully expect in my lifetime to be on the losing end of another election or three. But the numbers say not soon.

powerlifter54 wrote:What is a bit puzzling is you are a smart guy so you know that while their is a huge spectrum of beliefs, our choices Nationally come Down electorally to a Binary choice. You either pulled the lever for her or him. And now you oppose a very clear Presidential Power for the winner to use, and 2 of the 3 last Liberal Presidents used several times, because you don't like him. Not on the precedent, not on the law, but on some 3rd party rights sham to protect Starbucks and Udub so they can import people to work for them. I don't get that. Not in philosophy, just in action.

See...you did that again. Once again...just because the Presidential Election is a de facto 2 choice system does not mean that issues only come in 2 choices. It is not only possible, it is near essential to understand that splitting issues into a R/D choice is pathologically misguided. Reasonable Minds on all sides of the issue can differ. I've yet to see you demonstrate any mental agility in this regard. It's dumbfounding...pardon the pun.


As a lifelong conservative, you should recognize my sig. Here it is in full.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

Jfc BD you are getting Raypd. Stawp poasting.

bennyonesix wrote:Jfc BD you are getting Raypd. Stawp poasting.

:)

Start a training log you fagbot weak piece of shit. Until then...ride pine.

Benny's here for trolling. I don't know if he knows a thing about training - if so, he has not demonstrated it in any way so far...

Benny's here because of a psychotic break, and probable unemployment. Believe it or not, he used to be funny, say, 8 years ago?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:McCarthy's Sean Spicer impression was amazing.

Poor Spicer.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Benny's here because of a psychotic break, and probable unemployment.

:teehee

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Benny's here because of a psychotic break, and probable unemployment. Believe it or not, he used to be funny, say, 8 years ago?

He'll only accept admission into a 'Caucasian only' loony bin.

Japs and Irish are ok too.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:B16 is trollling and not even well.

Where the Law Was Broken....

There's a huge amount written on this. I've read only a 1/4 of probably including the EO, the statutory authority, the pleadings and injunction. It's pretty well established set of laws, some of which he's on solid ground, (declining to issue visas) some of which is on decent footing but hasn't been fully vetted with this fact pattern (rescinding visas and deporting without due process) and one glaring one that he's very likely to be shown to be dead wrong (essentially rescinding green cards without due process, deportations without process and disallowing green card and visa holders already on US soil access to both attorneys and due process)

It's beginning to look like DHS legal knew that green card holders in the US should not be included in the EO but were overruled by the Exec. Due process clause violations WRT the existing regulations is the part that's on really shakey ground. This is going to be teh center of the challenge including one by several states including Washington

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... l-ban.html

The new order also will ban travelers from six countries who did not obtain a visa before Jan. 27 from entering the United States for 90 days. The directive no longer includes Iraq, as the original order did, but covers immigration and travel from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Hmmmm...Somebunny did their homework over.....must have finally take a hard look a the likelihood of withstanding a court challenge.

apparently there is also this in the order:

The American government, the order says, will start publicizing information about “acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called ‘honor killings,’ in the United States by foreign nationals.”

which could lead to broader awareness of this troubling fact:

. . . if you added up all the women who have been murdered by their husbands or boyfriends since 9/11, and then you add up all the Americans who were killed by 9/11 or in Afghanistan and Iraq, more women were killed by their husbands or boyfriends.

so the data tell us the war on terror should simply focus on disgruntled males

powerlifter54 wrote:Not on the precedent, not on the law, but on some 3rd party rights sham to protect Starbucks and Udub so they can import people to work for them.

What's Udub?

JimZipCode wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:Not on the precedent, not on the law, but on some 3rd party rights sham to protect Starbucks and Udub so they can import people to work for them.

What's Udub?

University of Washington.

powerlifter54 wrote:Not on the precedent, not on the law, but on some 3rd party rights sham to protect Starbucks and Udub so they can import people to work for them.

Apparently not a sham after all......

Weird how when you do your homework, things have nuance and complexity.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:Not on the precedent, not on the law, but on some 3rd party rights sham to protect Starbucks and Udub so they can import people to work for them.

Apparently not a sham after all......

Weird how when you do your homework, things have nuance and complexity.

Open to your insight.

powerlifter54 wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:Not on the precedent, not on the law, but on some 3rd party rights sham to protect Starbucks and Udub so they can import people to work for them.

Apparently not a sham after all......

Weird how when you do your homework, things have nuance and complexity.

Open to your insight.

The travel ban issue that the states came out hardest on involved those same due process arguments I raised..specifically..if you have already granted a visa or green card to allow someone in and you summarily deny that, it raises serious questions about due process not just for those holders of those documents but the 3rd party sponsors and beneficiaries of those people's labor.

When Trump's folks went back and revised the order this is the area they reworked specifically to avoid these due process challenges.

I think the rest of the EO had some optic problems (but this is a guy with a comb-over and is a pathological liar...so optics are not high on his list. ) but on balance it is sound and within the current practice of Exec purvue. So the part that stayed I take no issue with. But with those specific areas above, I did think there were real problems from the jump. Apparently Trump's legal team is less bullish and leans towards agreeing that the States could win.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... travel-ban

the order represents a major departure from what came before.

The policy will not take effect until March 16, rather than immediately; it spells out clearly that green-card holders are not affected; and it provides a lengthy list of travelers who could be provided a waiver to come to the U.S., including students and children seeking medical treatment.

The narrowed policy drew praise from Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), a frequent Trump critic. He said the new order would both “pass legal muster” and “help achieve President Trump’s goal of making us safer.”

Who here actually feels "unsafe"?

climber511 wrote:Who here actually feels "unsafe"?

Only those brainwashed by Fox, Limbaugh, Jones, etc.
I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning twice than I do of being attacked by a Muslim terrorist.

Several orders of magnitude more dangerous to drive to work in my car. 30-40k of us die on the streets every year. TOTAL WAR ON CARS!!11!!1!!!!