London hit again

[andcam]

Doubt it, Lib's have been losing power in government at the local and national level for quite a while. Guess that's what happens when you align yourself with a death cult ideology and worship Political Correctness like a religion.

And @Earle36 , the reason I am confident, right now at least, that you lose votes at least in the house this next term is bc this Gop led Congress has done one thing: Get a supreme court justice approved by going nuclear on a rule that had been in place over 200 years. Where are you on healthcare? SEN Burr, says there is no way it gets done this year.. where are you on tax reform? Where are u on infrastructure? Where are u on taking away funds from planned parenthood? Where are you on passing a budget for heaven's sake? If you think your Gop voters are going out in full force to reward failure you will be sadly mistaken.

This is the sort of post I want to see you respond to earle... Really, can any GOP voter be pleased with this congressional record when they have the "Art of the Deal" in place to guide them by hand to the Conservative promiseland? This is what failure looks like.

 

[hopefultiger13]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/where-are-moderate-muslims

Dude... Are you seriously siting prageru? I'm not saying that the guy there didn't make some good points. Just like huffingtonpost and msnbc make some good points. That doesn't make them unbiased and prageru is every bit as biased the other way.

If you have 15 min, check out this critique on prageru. It's from utube, so you KNOW it's accurate. Again, biased product, but makes some really good points about prageru (most importantly that this is NOT a university, just a website that puts out 5 min videos that support their political views).

clickly

Fair warning... You will never get these 15 min back. And I'd guess that half of that 15 min is crap.

 

[vinotiger]

Dude... Are you seriously siting prageru? I'm not saying that the guy there didn't make some good points. Just like huffingtonpost and msnbc make some good points. That doesn't make them unbiased and prageru is every bit as biased the other way.

If you have 15 min, check out this critique on prageru. It's from utube, so you KNOW it's accurate. Again, biased product, but makes some really good points about prageru (most importantly that this is NOT a university, just a website that puts out 5 min videos that support their political views).

clickly

Fair warning... You will never get these 15 min back. And I'd guess that half of that 15 min is crap.

It's beyond tiring to see people on either side slam the source instead of breaking down the info in it.

 

[BasedCamp]

You're a fvcking moron. Do you have access to the gov't statistics or not. It's really not that diffucult.

You don't know how to Google and you're calling me the moron? I bet you think the earth is flat, too, huh?

 

[hopefultiger13]

It's beyond tiring to see people on either side slam the source instead of breaking down the info in it.

As I said, the guy makes some very good points. But the source of the information you are receiving is very important as well. What are this guy's credentials? It says he's a military instructor, middle eastern languages. Does he have a PhD? Where does he teach? If he teaches at the Army War College, that's impressive. If he teaches at various national guard bases in western Indiana, not so much. He makes some pretty sweeping statements when giving his personal story, the biggest of which is "my experience was typical". If he's a sociologist that specializes in Egypt, he can make this statement b/c he's an expert. Otherwise, he needs to site a reputable source. So I question some of what this guy says and I am right to do so.

Now, that being said, when he goes on to the statistics part of his presentation, he sites Pew Research as the source of his statistics. Pew Research has an excellent reputation as a fact tank that is non partisan and does a really good job with it's surveys, statistics, and research methods. Full marks for his sources. One concern I have is that he's "cherry picking" his questions to prove his point. I'd love to see the complete survey. I'd also like to the the comments section on how accurate the researches felt these answers were. After all, this countries sited have some pretty harsh punishments for heresy as well as the questions he pointed out. I wonder how confident the people surveyed were that the information would be confidential. That definitely affects what a person says.

FWIW, I tend to generally believe the message he's sending here, namely that what we are being told about "moderate" Muslims is whitewashed a bit. But again, prageru is pretty famous for putting out conservative propaganda.

 

[vinotiger]

You don't know how to Google and you're calling me the moron? I bet you think the earth is flat, too, huh?

And wtf should I google to refute YOUR argument?? Lol

It's not my responsibility to provide your facts. Seriously how old are you??

 

[vinotiger]

As I said, the guy makes some very good points. But the source of the information you are receiving is very important as well. What are this guy's credentials? It says he's a military instructor, middle eastern languages. Does he have a PhD? Where does he teach? If he teaches at the Army War College, that's impressive. If he teaches at various national guard bases in western Indiana, not so much. He makes some pretty sweeping statements when giving his personal story, the biggest of which is "my experience was typical". If he's a sociologist that specializes in Egypt, he can make this statement b/c he's an expert. Otherwise, he needs to site a reputable source. So I question some of what this guy says and I am right to do so.

Now, that being said, when he goes on to the statistics part of his presentation, he sites Pew Research as the source of his statistics. Pew Research has an excellent reputation as a fact tank that is non partisan and does a really good job with it's surveys, statistics, and research methods. Full marks for his sources. One concern I have is that he's "cherry picking" his questions to prove his point. I'd love to see the complete survey. I'd also like to the the comments section on how accurate the researches felt these answers were. After all, this countries sited have some pretty harsh punishments for heresy as well as the questions he pointed out. I wonder how confident the people surveyed were that the information would be confidential. That definitely affects what a person says.

FWIW, I tend to generally believe the message he's sending here, namely that what we are being told about "moderate" Muslims is whitewashed a bit. But again, prageru is pretty famous for putting out conservative propaganda.

Good post. I just get tired of the easy out of attacking the source but you recovered nicely. Good day

 

[BasedCamp]

And wtf should I google to refute YOUR argument?? Lol

It's not my responsibility to provide your facts. Seriously how old are you??

If you enter into a debate, you must be educated enough to debate the topic. I'm not here to educate you. Besides, what is your claim in the first place? I've stated mine, and you're questioning my facts, not even my point of debate. If you attempted to Google your argument (whatever that may be), you'd get the facts that support mine.

 

[vinotiger]

If you enter into a debate, you must be educated enough to debate the topic. I'm not here to educate you. Besides, what is your claim in the first place? I've stated mine, and you're questioning my facts, not even my point of debate. If you attempted to Google your argument (whatever that may be), you'd get the facts that support mine.

My god you're doubling down. You make a dubious claim and someone asks you to back that up with verifiable facts and you tell them to "google it"? That's beyond moronic and I award you no points. Please step away from the computer bc you truly have NO idea what you're talking about at this point.

 

[BasedCamp]

My god you're doubling down. You make a dubious claim and someone asks you to back that up with verifiable facts and you tell them to "google it"? That's beyond moronic and I award you no points. Please step away from the computer bc you truly have NO idea what you're talking about at this point.

You've made 4 or 5 posts saying that I have to back up my point with facts. I stated the facts to begin with yet you request to provide links. You've yet to make your own point, other than to state that I'm a moron, yet you call this a debate. And all the while, all you're capable of doing is being condescending and ridiculing (or attempting to be, at least). Perhaps you need to step away from the keyboard?

You've made no point except to assert that I'm wrong in some way. Then you say it's not "my responsibility to provide your facts." Well, if your only claim is that I'm wrong, then yes, it is. Otherwise, what would be the basis of your argument? If you were capable of making some form of counterpoint, then you, too, would have to have facts to back it up. You've made no such claims, presented no such facts. If you did attempt to do so, you'd find the same facts that I've presented to substantiate my initial argument (which is that people aren't inherently bad based on the religion they practice). See where this is going?

Now that I'm done playing patty cake with you, and in the words of the great William Shakespear, one should never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. With that said, OrangeBallz out.

 

[vinotiger]

You've made 4 or 5 posts saying that I have to back up my point with facts. I stated the facts to begin with yet you request to provide links. You've yet to make your own point, other than to state that I'm a moron, yet you call this a debate. And all the while, all you're capable of doing is being condescending and ridiculing (or attempting to be, at least). Perhaps you need to step away from the keyboard?

You've made no point except to assert that I'm wrong in some way. Then you say it's not "my responsibility to provide your facts." Well, if your only claim is that I'm wrong, then yes, it is. Otherwise, what would be the basis of your argument? If you were capable of making some form of counterpoint, then you, too, would have to have facts to back it up. You've made no such claims, presented no such facts. If you did attempt to do so, you'd find the same facts that I've presented to substantiate my initial argument (which is that people aren't inherently bad based on the religion they practice). See where this is going?

Now that I'm done playing patty cake with you, and in the words of the great William Shakespear, one should never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. With that said, OrangeBallz out.

All the lulz. You haven't proven anything other than stating an opinion. Historical data cited? None. Nada. Zilch.

At this point I'm making a general point. If your stance is nothing more than "google it" tells me your argument is quite weak.

Regroup and don't make that mistake again. I'm just trying to help you save face from looking like a moron in later debates. You're welcome.

 

[orangelvis]

NO Liberal will defend the Roosevelt internment. It was wrong. You want find one to defend it. As for the American muslim killing, I do not have a lot of knowledge of that situation. Perhaps someone else can take up the mantle on that one.

The point still remains that any President has an explicit authority to vet or even ban people from other countries from entering this country. Jimmy Carter wrote and invoked an EO that was basically word for word DT's EO. It even involved vetting or even banning citizens of some of the same countries.
These District judges are acting strictly on political beliefs and are using specious arguments that they know will be overturned; all for the sake of political hate and obstruction of Trump's agenda. An agenda that he ran his campaign on and was duly elected to carry out. The alt-left is now running the democrat party and is attempting a type of political coup.

 

[blythewood tigers]

The point still remains that any President has an explicit authority to vet or even ban people from other countries from entering this country. Jimmy Carter wrote and invoked an EO that was basically word for word DT's EO. It even involved vetting or even banning citizens of some of the same countries.
These District judges are acting strictly on political beliefs and are using specious arguments that they know will be overturned; all for the sake of political hate and obstruction of Trump's agenda. An agenda that he ran his campaign on and was duly elected to carry out. The alt-left is now running the democrat party and is attempting a type of political coup.

In Article II, in all four sections, it doesn't say anything in the Constitution to support your claim. Where are you getting this "explicit authority" you mention from?

 

[orangelvis]

In Article II, in all four sections, it doesn't say anything in the Constitution to support your claim. Where are you getting this "explicit authority" you mention from?

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/t...immigration-is-both-legal-and-constitutional/

The above explains it as clearly as I've seen.

He has statutory authority that was granted by Congress and used many times in the past.
Also, someone explain to me how Obama exercised unilateral authority to basically commit the U.S. to a "treaty" in the Paris Accord. Every European country that signed it had to go through their own legislatures to ratify it.

 

[blythewood tigers]

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/t...immigration-is-both-legal-and-constitutional/

The above explains it as clearly as I've seen.

He has statutory authority that was granted by Congress and used many times in the past.
Also, someone explain to me how Obama exercised unilateral authority to basically commit the U.S. to a "treaty" in the Paris Accord. Every European country that signed it had to go through their own legislatures to ratify it.

Oh, I see, they believe that a President can execute this via executive "orders". Let me leave you a quote to the contrary.

"The constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.”

This is an unconstitutional move, the President can only enforce laws in the books related to the executive branch, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if it lives as the executive is "claiming" more power faster than the Judicial. Pretty soon we may as well abolish the legislative, currently it's just for looks to make things look "fair".

 

[BasedCamp]

All the lulz. You haven't proven anything other than stating an opinion. Historical data cited? None. Nada. Zilch.

At this point I'm making a general point. If your stance is nothing more than "google it" tells me your argument is quite weak.

Regroup and don't make that mistake again. I'm just trying to help you save face from looking like a moron in later debates. You're welcome.

Hahaha, you're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

 

[orangelvis]

Oh, I see, they believe that a President can execute this via executive "orders". Let me leave you a quote to the contrary.

"The constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.”

This is an unconstitutional move, the President can only enforce laws in the books related to the executive branch, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if it lives as the executive is "claiming" more power faster than the Judicial. Pretty soon we may as well abolish the legislative, currently it's just for looks to make things look "fair".

Ok, so you're saying then that the Congress had no business passing the statute quoted in the article. That's fine, as long as you've been against the statute since it was passed, and against all of the other times in history that it has been invoked by the Executive. I have no problem. However, this process has not been reported as such by the hysterical msm.

 

[blythewood tigers]

Ok, so you're saying then that the Congress had no business passing the statute quoted in the article. That's fine, as long as you've been against the statute since it was passed, and against all of the other times in history that it has been invoked by the Executive. I have no problem. However, this process has not been reported as such by the hysterical msm.

I am against all these crazy statues. Congress has no time to thoroughly review any of them, the President signs off on whatever fits his agenda, everything is always considered an "emergency", hence the reason I attached the quote. In today's world, it's either executive orders or "temporary" statutes, pick your poison. Once all this crap hits the books it NEVER gets taken off.

 

[orangelvis]

I am against all these crazy statues. Congress has no time to thoroughly review any of them, the President signs off on whatever fits his agenda, everything is always considered an "emergency", hence the reason I attached the quote. In today's world, it's either executive orders or "temporary" statutes, pick your poison. Once all this crap hits the books it NEVER gets taken off.

I have no argument with that.

 

[vinotiger]

Hahaha, you're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

Pot meet kettle. Good night snowflake. Time to regroup.

 

[BasedCamp]

Pot meet kettle. Good night snowflake. Time to regroup.

Kettle only understands insults. You clearly don't understand logic. Nighty night buttercup.

 

[vinotiger]

Kettle only understands insults. You clearly don't understand logic. Nighty night buttercup.

There's some irony here...gimme a sec, I'll find it tho.

Now go to sleep. You have another looong day tomorrow in the classroom, son.

 

[andcam]

The point still remains that any President has an explicit authority to vet or even ban people from other countries from entering this country. Jimmy Carter wrote and invoked an EO that was basically word for word DT's EO. It even involved vetting or even banning citizens of some of the same countries.
These District judges are acting strictly on political beliefs and are using specious arguments that they know will be overturned; all for the sake of political hate and obstruction of Trump's agenda. An agenda that he ran his campaign on and was duly elected to carry out. The alt-left is now running the democrat party and is attempting a type of political coup.

But here is the deal orangelvis, when Obama could not get anything through the Republican Congress he started to make executive orders and a funny thing happened: The Right started taking him to court. In fact, I distinctly remember an article during that time that the left will learn from the right and will do the same to the next GOP President. So this falls on the what goes around, comes around argument. That is what happens in a hyper political environment and will continue to do so until we can all figure out way to get a consensus, which is what the framer's of the constitution envisioned in the first place.

 

[iceheart08]

The point still remains that any President has an explicit authority to vet or even ban people from other countries from entering this country. Jimmy Carter wrote and invoked an EO that was basically word for word DT's EO. It even involved vetting or even banning citizens of some of the same countries.
These District judges are acting strictly on political beliefs and are using specious arguments that they know will be overturned; all for the sake of political hate and obstruction of Trump's agenda. An agenda that he ran his campaign on and was duly elected to carry out. The alt-left is now running the democrat party and is attempting a type of political coup.

oh please oh wise and great legal scholar, tell us all about the "specious" arguments "district judges" are using that they "know will be overturned".

 

[BasedCamp]

There's some irony here...gimme a sec, I'll find it tho.

Now go to sleep. You have another looong day tomorrow in the classroom, son.

Aww, buttercup, it's ok. It comes as no surprise that someone with so few brain cells can't find the irony when it smacks them in the face.

 

[vinotiger]

Aww, buttercup, it's ok. It comes as no surprise that someone with so few brain cells can't find the irony when it smacks them in the face.

Zach, apparently sarcasm is lost on you, you ugly ****.

 

[BasedCamp]

Zach, apparently sarcasm is lost on you, you ugly ****.

 

[orangelvis]

But here is the deal orangelvis, when Obama could not get anything through the Republican Congress he started to make executive orders and a funny thing happened: The Right started taking him to court. In fact, I distinctly remember an article during that time that the left will learn from the right and will do the same to the next GOP President. So this falls on the what goes around, comes around argument. That is what happens in a hyper political environment and will continue to do so until we can all figure out way to get a consensus, which is what the framer's of the constitution envisioned in the first place.

Except Obama was refuted by the Supremes. So the blocking was constitutionally legit. Trump hasn't gotten there yet. I firmly believe that these Leftist know that they have no chance at the SC. They're just doing this to obstruct. As far Obama goes. Yes, he unilaterally signed us up for the Paris Accord; as if he had the power to enjoin the US in what can only be viewed as a treaty. A treaty that even the Europeans had ratified by their own legislative branches.
So basically the alt-libs blocking the travel ban/vetting EO, can be viewed as their bunch promoting terrorism in this country, because that is exactly what is going to happen. Conservative estimates that I've seen state as many as 10% of these people are jihadist. So when it happens, just remember that these judges have put their alt-left ideology above the safety of the country.

 

[orangelvis]

oh please oh wise and great legal scholar, tell us all about the "specious" arguments "district judges" are using that they "know will be overturned".

Come on man! Everyone knows you're the only legal scholar on the board, as well as the only person never to have set foot in Clemson, SC that participates here. Let's just see what happens at the Supreme Court; then we'll talk.

 

[iceheart08]

Come on man! Everyone knows you're the only legal scholar on the board, as well as the only person never to have set foot in Clemson, SC that participates here. Let's just see what happens at the Supreme Court; then we'll talk.

No? Not gonna address the actual arguments?

You brought them up, you don't even know what they are are...

 

[orangelvis]

No? Not gonna address the actual arguments?

You brought them up, you don't even know what they are are...

Wrong. I posted them earlier. You didn't read enough of the thread.