Executive order and Business ties

[Gulo Blue]

that's not pedantic and I said you seemed pedantic. If someone comes here seeking asylum and espousing a belief in sharia law because they value the tenets of religious and political islam over those of our constituional republic, we shouldn't let them in. Is that discrimination? maybe, but it's not wrong and it's definitely not racist. That's not a pedantic argument.

It's a pretty good example of pedantic. Looking at the literal meaning of the word, yeah, using the word 'Muslim' isn't a reference to a race. But people aren't using the word that technically correct way in this context. Nobody's talking about the Nation of Islam or the Uyghurs in China. They're talking about people from a certain part of the world that look a certain way. By turning to the literal definition, you're technically right, but you've changed the meaning from what Thumb meant.

I don't disagree with the strawman you cooked up here for the record. We shouldn't let in people that don't believe in American principles. Absolutely.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's a pretty good example of pedantic. Looking at the literal meaning of the word, yeah, using the word 'Muslim' isn't a reference to a race. But people aren't using the word that technically correct way in this context. Nobody's talking about the Nation of Islam or the Uyghurs in China. They're talking about people from a certain part of the world that look a certain way. By turning to the literal definition, you're technically right, but you've changed the meaning from what Thumb meant.

I don't disagree with the strawman you cooked up here for the record. We shouldn't let in people that don't believe in American principles. Absolutely.

no, it's not pedantic and my argument isn't a strawman. The EO isn't talking about people from a certain part of the world that look a certain way. It's aimed at people with a certain belief system that isn't compatible with our constitutional republic. The TEMPORARY ban on immigration from those countries is based on the inability to effectively vet people from those countries. The previous administration identified these 7 countries as problematic because they lack the infrastructure and resources to provide adequate information to vet their citizens. This administration is taking a step back to evaluate if what we're doing is putting us at risk. That's not racist by either the real definition of racism or what Thumb thinks racist means, that's what they should be doing. I did say even if it was a Muslim ban, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be racist. That point is clearly secondary to the bit about belief systems inconsistent with our laws and culture yet you seem fixated on that so you can make it seem as though my argument is based on a technicality. And I'm the pedant? Interesting.

By the way, if this is truly a Muslim ban, then explain to me why 85% of the world's Muslims are exempt. No one seems to be addressing that. They just say "Muslim ban!" and fools pile on and scream "RACISM!"

 

[Gulo Blue]

no, it's not pedantic and my argument isn't a strawman. The EO isn't talking about people from a certain part of the world that look a certain way. It's aimed at people with a certain belief system that isn't compatible with our constitutional republic. The TEMPORARY ban on immigration from those countries is based on the inability to effectively vet people from those countries. The previous administration identified these 7 countries as problematic because they lack the infrastructure and resources to provide adequate information to vet their citizens. This administration is taking a step back to evaluate if what we're doing is putting us at risk. That's not racist by either the real definition of racism or what Thumb thinks racist means, that's what they should be doing. I did say even if it was a Muslim ban, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be racist. That point is clearly secondary to the bit about belief systems inconsistent with our laws and culture yet you seem fixated on that so you can make it seem as though my argument is based on a technicality. And I'm the pedant? Interesting.

By the way, if this is truly a Muslim ban, then explain to me why 85% of the world's Muslims are exempt. No one seems to be addressing that. They just say "Muslim ban!" and fools pile on and scream "RACISM!"

I didn't call the ban a Muslim ban, I didn't call the ban racist, I didn't make a point that would have anything to do with who we let in or don't let in. All these arguments you are making have nothing to do with what I said.

But the claim that the word racism doesn't apply because Muslims aren't technically a race, I disagree. I think you have to ignore context and focus on technicality to see it that way.

 

[Michchamp]

I didn't call the ban a Muslim ban, I didn't call the ban racist, I didn't make a point that would have anything to do with who we let in or don't let in. All these arguments you are making have nothing to do with what I said.

But the claim that the word racism doesn't apply because Muslims aren't technically a race, I disagree. I think you have to ignore context and focus on technicality to see it that way.

actually, I would wager if you went out and polled supporters of this executive order, most of them would view the people are who Muslim to be a race... "Arab"... they typically don't make a distinction between ethnic Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, etc.

 

[Spartanmack]

I didn't call the ban a Muslim ban, I didn't call the ban racist, I didn't make a point that would have anything to do with who we let in or don't let in. All these arguments you are making have nothing to do with what I said.

But the claim that the word racism doesn't apply because Muslims aren't technically a race, I disagree. I think you have to ignore context and focus on technicality to see it that way.

I never said you did. And here you are again focusing on a minor nit about a secondary point. Of course you're wrong about it, but we're just going in circles. Again, the point is discriminating against belief systems that are anathema to the founding principles of our republic is not racist. Muslims are not a race. Islam is a religious political system. Discriminating against them because their beliefs don't fit our society isn't racism, it's the right thing to do.

 

[Spartanmack]

actually, I would wager if you went out and polled supporters of this executive order, most of them would view the people are who Muslim to be a race... "Arab"... they typically don't make a distinction between ethnic Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, etc.

What about the Somalis and Sudanese? They're not Arabs. I bet you're wrong. In fact, I bet if you polled people who support and people who oppose, a greater proportion of the latter would make that mistake which is why they think the EO is racist when it clearly isn't.

 

[Gulo Blue]

'Black' isn't a race either. Maybe the word 'racism' applies to nothing! Racism eliminated through careful attention to definitions!! Hooray!

 

[Michchamp]

Perhaps it's just how you worded this, but this is absolutely false.

Any person, immigrant, illegal immigrant, refugee, or prisoner on US soil or it's territories is protected under the 14th amendment, even non-citizens.

This, is indeed a fact.

youre correct. i missed this part of his post, because the first part was already bad enough.

the constitution plainly refers to "citizens" in some places, and "persons" in others. constitutional restraints on government - like no loss of life, liberty or property without the due process of law - generally apply to actions against persons; constitutional privileges - like voting - are proscribed to citizens.

many different supreme courts over the years have agreed.

and even beyond the plain reading of the constitution, it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to make it this way; they were all too familiar with European kings and queens revoking citizenship to abridge the rights of a person, or declaring one outside the law, literally an outlaw, and therefore not protected by the state. the US government can't do those things.

spartanmack needs to go back to law school.

I think he got his JD from Breitbart U. or maybe facebook.

 

[Michchamp]

What about the Somalis and Sudanese? They're not Arabs. I bet you're wrong. In fact, I bet if you polled people who support and people who oppose, a greater proportion of the latter would make that mistake which is why they think the EO is racist when it clearly isn't.

oh, yeah, well we know people in favor of the order don't like Africans either, so yeah.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Nevermind. Nothing to see here.

 

[Spartanmack]

youre correct. i missed this part of his post, because the first part was already bad enough.

the constitution plainly refers to "citizens" in some places, and "persons" in others. constitutional restraints on government - like no loss of life, liberty or property without the due process of law - generally apply to actions against persons; constitutional privileges - like voting - are proscribed to citizens.

many different supreme courts over the years have agreed.

and even beyond the plain reading of the constitution, it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to make it this way; they were all too familiar with European kings and queens revoking citizenship to abridge the rights of a person, or declaring one outside the law, literally an outlaw, and therefore not protected by the state. the US government can't do those things.

spartanmack needs to go back to law school.

I think he got his JD from Breitbart U. or maybe facebook.

have those courts including the supreme court agreed that denying entry into the US by foreign nationals constitutes loss of life, liberty or property?

And we're not talking about revoking citizenship - these people aren't citizens.

You're both wrong. Again.

Someone needs to go back to law school, but it's not me.

 

[dubbsco]

Gulo, I deleted my post because I didn't feel like getting into it to be honest.

But since you quoted it, I don't think any one person needs to accept our societal norms to be considered an American. I don't agree with a ton of what we do as a nation. But I keep my mouth shut and do my job. Why can't an immigrant do the same? I think that thought process is laughably antiquated and something that belongs in the 1700s.

 

[Spartanmack]

'Black' isn't a race either. Maybe the word 'racism' applies to nothing! Racism eliminated through careful attention to definitions!! Hooray!

You're starting to sound like michchamp. Since when is it not a race?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Gulo, I deleted my post because I didn't feel like getting into it to be honest.

My bad. Post deleted.

 

[Spartanmack]

Gulo, I deleted my post because I didn't feel like getting into it to be honest.

But since you quoted it, I don't think any one person needs to accept our societal norms to be considered an American. I don't agree with a ton of what we do as a nation. But I keep my mouth shut and do my job. Why can't an immigrant do the same? I think that thought process is laughably antiquated and something that belongs in the 1700s.

that's too bad because I was going to have some fun at your expense. I guess I can still do that.

See you weren't the only one that caught it, you're just the only or one of a few dumb enough to take from it what you did. I very specifically stated that people who don't agree with the founding principles of our constitutional republic, i.e. those who espouse sharia law and feel it supersedes our political and legal system shouldn't be allowed to come here. People who believe capital punishment is appropriate for apostasy, drawing pictures of a prophet, homosexuality, adultery, etc, etc or people who believe honor killings are appropriate punishments for refusing arranged marriages, lopping off hands to punish thieves, or that practice female genital mutilation, etc, etc shouldn't be allowed to come here.

That's not remotely un-American.

 

[dubbsco]

Lol it's all good. I just didn't feel like going down an unwinnable battle.

 

[Spartanmack]

oh, yeah, well we know people in favor of the order don't like Africans either, so yeah.

yeah, what? wrong again, so go back to the old reliable "racism". You're like Bart Simpson, "good ol' rock...nothin beats that"

 

[Thumb]

I never said you did. And here you are again focusing on a minor nit about a secondary point. Of course you're wrong about it, but we're just going in circles. Again, the point is discriminating against belief systems that are anathema to the founding principles of our republic is not racist. Muslims are not a race. Islam is a religious political system. Discriminating against them because their beliefs don't fit our society isn't racism, it's the right thing to do.

For the record, I never called Muslims a "race". Or called it racist based on the fact they are Muslims. That's you're own little strawman there. I actually mentioned several times it violated the 1st amendment because it's religious persecution, not racism.

As for you idiotic last sentence, can you tell me what the definition of our societys beliefs are? What law are they written down in, that make any form of discrimination the "right thing to do"?

 

[Thumb]

Also this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...n-625pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.880be6d94995

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

Guess those judges need to go back to law school along with michchamp huh sparty, because they are obviously wrong for disagreeing with you.

 

[Michchamp]

okay, so the 9th circuit upheld the district court's injunction against Trump's travel ban.

so... a large chunk of his executive order is legally unenforceable, pending a full adjudication of the matter by the district court judge in Seattle.

amazingly the three 9th circuit appellate court judges who issued the ruling - who combined have been practicing for over a 100 years - did not notice that the district court had overstepped their authority in issuing the injunction against Trump's order!

Heavens... someone better let noted legal scholar spartanmack know.

Dumbass Trump already tweeted he wants to take it to the Supreme Court.

at best he gets 4-4 decision there, meaning the 9th circuit's opinion stays in effect.