Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Faith writes:

quote:

---

With good reason.

---

What is that good reason? It has never been true before. Why is now any different?

quote:

---

You sleazy nitpicking literalminded lying leftists

---

The irony in you is strong, isn't it? How many lies have you been caught in on just this forum, Faith? Do you really want to go there?

quote:

---

never giving an inch, not a moment's grace, nothing. Pounce pounce pounce.

---

Reality never gives an inch, never a moment's grace, nothing. It will pounce, pounce, pounce upon you at ever turn. Yes, I know how disheartening it is to be told that you're wrong at every turn. After all, it can't possibly be the case that everything you say is false, right? Surely there has to be something that you're correct about, hasn't there?No. No, there doesn't. So long as you keep repeating falsehoods and lies, you will be called out on it.Every time.If you don't like the treatment you are receiving, consider the behaviour you are engaging in and contemplate if that might have some connection. Your right to speak your mind does not come with a right to be free from response and criticism. Your right to your opinion does not bestow upon it any legitimacy or connection to reality.

quote:

---

I have many times rejected conservative views.

---

Name one.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Evil in the form of politically correct suicidal cowardly bleeding-heart mushheadedness has won another victory.

---

Can you name a single terrorist attack here in the US from any of the countries in the Muslim ban?No?It would seem you have no idea what "politically correct" means, Faith. Your entire argument is nothing but political correctness. It is based not upon any sort of reality but solely upon a political position that you cannot deviate from lest you be thought of as "liberal."If that is not textbook "political correctness," then you have no idea what that phrase means.It would seem you have no idea what "suicidal" means. Since there haven't been any terrorist attacks from any of the people who are from those countries, one has to wonder why you are worried you are about to kill yourself.And exactly how is it "cowardly" to take in those who are fleeing terrorism? After all, aren't you claiming that you're scared to death that "terrorists will follow"? Doesn't that make it brave and heroic to take in those who are fleeing terrorism even if it means a risk of having a "terrorist follow"?That's what makes us the good guys, Faith: We rush into danger to help those who cannot fight it for themselves. We do so knowing full well that we may be hurt in the process. That's what makes us brave.Your cowardly reaction shows you have no idea what "cowardly" means."Bleeding-heart"? That's the entire basis for Christ, Faith.And you call yourself a Christian.The irony is strong in you, isn't it?

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm sure all the lefties here now "feel better about themselves" because of your denunciation of the dissenter.

---

Nope.Nobody likes having to correct you, Faith. Remember, you spouted on an on about lying. Do you like being lied to? Then what makes you think we like being lied to, Faith?The issue is not that you have a different opinion. It's that your justification for your opinion has no connection to reality and you don't seem to care.

quote:

---

It's you who doesn't know what political correctness is, you're just making it up to suit yourself, as usual.

---

What a politically correct statement.The irony is strong in you, isn't it? "Political correctness" is the taking of a position for the political cachet it gives you, not because it is connected to any sense of reality or even that you truly believe it. The right is just as "politically correct" as you claim the left is...just about different things. For example, the conservative position regarding equal rights for gays: To come out in favor of equality for those who aren't straight runs afoul of the politically correct position of conservatives. Despite the fact that we see conservatives behaving differently around gay people who are directly involved in their lives (see the Cheneys), they will still advocate for positions that directly harm those people because they cannot be politically incorrect.Your very complaint about political correctness is, itself, a politically correct statement: Only the left can be "politically correct," right? To find that your own beliefs are based upon the political cachet you get by spouting them is anathema to you and you cannot consider the possibility.Witness the political correctness of the right over their insistence that Obama "can't say 'Islamic terrorism.'" Despite the fact that this was never true (he routinely called out terrorism from those who practiced Islam and routinely used the specific phrase, "Islamic terrorism"), the fact that they were so insistent on the specific phrase, "Islamic terrorism," is proof that this was an exercise in political correctness: They were seeking a political position regardless of any connection to reality the situation may have. That's why they routinely called incidents that had no connection to either terrorism (not all criminal acts are terrorism) or Islam (not all terrorists are Muslim) as "Islamic terrorism." They didn't actually care about the terrorism. They didn't care about the people who were killed. They didn't care about actually protecting anybody from anything. They simply wanted to demonize a group of people and insisted that all discussion of the subject be couched in a specific, politically correct way.Witness Trump's order to the US law enforcement agencies to stop investigating right-wing terrorist activities. This is a politically correct position to take: Most terrorism in the US is at the hands of right-wing, conservative, Christian groups (and in Europe, too, by the way). By telling law enforcement to stop investigating the most common form of terrorism in favor of the most rare is not out of any connection to reality but due to a political position and the cachet it gives among certain groups for stating it.It's "virtue signaling."It's political correctness."Run amuck," if you like.

quote:

---

Or maybe you don't know what the word "textbook" means.

---

Textbook projection.

quote:

---

Oh well, I could repeat my post and then you'd repeat yours and so what.

---

And every time you repeat yourself, you'll get corrected. At what point do you consider the possibility that perhaps you've made an error?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

So let me understand.

---

Bring on the strawman....

quote:

---

Most here want Muslims to be free to enter the country with little or no vetting? Any restrictions at all?

​

Same with people crossing our southern border? No deportations, some deportions?

---

Nope. Nobody here has said any such thing. As predicted, a genuine strawman.Think carefully, Faith: Are you seriously claiming that the only two options are either a ban or to have absolutely no policy regarding immigration?Hint: How long does it take for a refugee to get clearance to come into the United States?Bonus hint: What happens during that time period?Extra bonus hint: What does it take to get a visa to the US?Special bonus hint: Which countries need visas for entry to the US?Exactly what is it you know about US immigration policy? Have you read a single thing about it from the actual Immigration and Naturalization Service? Things you got from Fox/Breitbart/Stormfront don't count. I want to know what research you've done into actual US immigration policy. It's all publicly available, so it should be easy for you to find out for yourself.What is the process for someone from, say, Lebanon to come to the US?

NoNukes writes:

quote:

---

There are good reasons to vet at least some, and possibly large numbers of Muslims.

---

Huh? That only make sense in the most simplistic of senses. There are good reasons to vet at least some, and possibly large numbers of Christians, too.What does the religion of the person wishing to immigrate have to do with anything? Most terrorism in the US is done at the hands of right-wing Christians. Our history with Muslim immigrants is that they tend not to engage in such activity. The crime rate for immigrants in general is less than half that for natives.So exactly what is it about Muslims that has people on edge?Here, let me fix that for you:There are good reasons to vet at least some and possibly large numbers of immigrants to the United States.Merely being Muslim is not a reason. In fact, it's chasing after shadows.

PaulK writes:

quote:

---

Rather than fighting it out in court and attacking judges the Trump administration should withdraw the current order and come up with a new one without the problems. It would save time and money all round.

---

If it were truly about "safety" and "national security," then of course. Go ahead and fight the legal battle for the order you want to have, but go back to the drawing board and draft a new one that will be in alignment with the legal standard as we understand it right now. Currently, there hasn't even been a trial on the merits of this case. The order is only good for a few months. By the time it actually gets to trial and a verdict rendered, it will be well past the effective length of the order (though, of course, the order states that it can be extended which, of course, means that it will never be revoked).So far, every judge that has looked at this has said that it wouldn't survive that trial and thus the stay will remain in effect. So if Trump truly cared about the "safety" of this country, if he truly cared about "national security" as he tried to claim during the press conference in Japan (where he didn't seem to understand that press conferences mean the press will ask you about anything and everything, not just about what you and the foreign dignitary were discussing...after all, there is more going on in the world than just that the US and Japan had a meeting), then he'd have a plan for what to do if the verdict goes against him. If the "safety" and "national security" is at stake, then every day he delays is another day of danger. Don't wait for the verdict but draft a new order that gets at least some of what you want.I think we all know that this has nothing to do with "safety" or "national security."It is simple political correctness run amok. He has a political position that he cannot deviate from lest it make him look "liberal."

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Actually I just need to get the conservative point of view to counter the effect of the wall of liberal/leftist opinion at EvC. I don't know yet exactly where my own opinion will end up.

---

So you admit that you have literally no idea what you're talking about yet you are certain that the information you are finding here is wrong because "liberals" are providing it.Textbook political correctness.The irony is strong in you.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

What I mean about seeing conservative opinion on the subject is opinion that comes from political websites and blogs and talk shows.

---

You mean those sources that you know are lying to you? That have been demonstrated to be lying to you? That you know should be avoided because they lie?How many times do you need to be shown that they are not to be trusted before you learn the lesson?Textbook political correctness.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

I said nothing about sabotage of any specific action.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Did you or did you not write the following in Message 636: Did you or did you not write the following in Message 629: Please, let us not play dumb, Faith. You're the one who brought up "sabotage." You don't then to feign ignorance about your own argument. If you didn't mean to bring up sabotage, why did that word come out of your post?If you didn't mean to bring up sabotage in regard to the specific topic of conversation that is taking place right here and now, then why did that word escape your keyboard not just once but twice?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

As of a few years ago, the Ninth District Court has the distinction of being "the most reversed."

---

Yep.How does that make them wrong? Do you not understand how our court system works? There is another court above them...a court that has/had Scalia and Thomas on it. The presence of those two ensure that the decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be trusted because they, specifically, are piss-poor jurists.Scalia, for example, was the most activist judge on that court, voting to overturn more laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the President than any other justice.Scalia would routinely contradict his own arguments from other cases. Take the Obergefell decision. Scalia directly wrote in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that if L v. T were precedent, then there was no possible way to deny the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.So when a case regarding the constitutionality of same-sex marriage came before the court, did Scalia follow his own legal reasoning? After all, Lawrence v. Texas was the binding precedent. Thus, by Scalia's own argument, he would have no choice to but to rule in favor of equality, just like the Loving v. Virginia decision.But he didn't. He contradicted his own argument.This is hardly an isolated incident. He does it over and over again. When Arizona tried to circumvent US immigration policy, they were denied by the Supreme Court. Scalia dissented...but had to do so by denying his own rulings on executive power: In Morrison v. Olson, Scalia specifically wrote: Thus, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which gives the federal government full control over immigration trumps any attempt by an individual state to circumvent those federal policies. Note that in that case, it was about the appointment of special prosecutors, against the directive of the President, to investigate the executive branch. Specifically, the law allowed for the appointment of special prosecutors to investigate the executive branch without the consent of the President. Scalia disapproved of this saying that the executive branch is the only one who can investigate and prosecute violations of the law.Unless, of course, Scalia thinks that it should be prosecuted and the executive doesn't. Then it's perfectly fine for the executive to be usurped.And this wasn't a one-off. In Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, he wrote: So it's clear that Scalia believes that only the executive can engage in prosecution (and note that this was an immigration case). For Arizona to deny the President's policy and usurp his powers would most certainly run afoul of Scalia's stated philosophy, right?Wrong. Scalia simply ignored his previous opinions in order to get the outcome he wanted.For more evidence, see here: The New RepublicSo for someone to whine that the 9th Circuit is the "most reversed court" is not a sign that the 9th Circuit is somehow bad.It simply means that it isn't the final court of review. The Supreme Court gets that job and if it is staffed with incompetent jurists such as Scalia and Thomas, then the fact that the 9th is the "most reversed" is actually a sign that they're more likely to be in the right.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Infowars commentator says the court simply usurped the role of the President; the law is crystal clear that the power is the President's.

---

Infowars...by which you should read, "Alex Jones"...is not a source. They are lying to you.You know this because you've been shown how Alex Jones is a liar and is not to be trusted.So why are you giving him credit?Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Another commentator at Infowars is saying the Constitution itself defines the jurisdiction of the President as covering immigration and national security, another fact that puts the court in the wrong.

---

Infowars...by which you should read, "Alex Jones"...is not a source. They are lying to you.You know this because you've been shown how Alex Jones is a liar and is not to be trusted.So why are you giving him credit?Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.

quote:

---

Otherwise I haven't had time to listen/read other conservative opinions.

---

So you admit that you haven't done your homework?And worse yet, you don't know what your opinion is until a "conservative" other tells you what it should be?Textbook political correctness. You don't have your own opinion. You are simply a parrot for the "correct" opinion that you are spoonfed by someone else.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

I do confess to being Terrorismphobic.

---

Then you would be outraged that Trump has told the law enforcement agencies to stop investigating right-wing, conservative, Christian groups.They are the ones that engage in most terrorism in the US.If you are truly "terrorismphobic," then any denial of the largest source of terrorism would be anathema to you. Any exaggeration of the threat from the most uncommon source of terrorism would be an outrage since it would be making us less safe.

quote:

---

Can we add that to the PC arsenal?

---

Yep. Because of your political correctness, you want to make us less safe. You want to ignore the actual threat in order to declare a false threat. Why? Because to actually pay attention to the largest threat, to pay attention to the real threat goes against your politics.Textbook political correctness.Hint: "Political correctness" was coined to describe the right, Faith, not the left.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

I've got Infowars talking away in the background as I type and just realized this report by David Knight is chock full of interesting historical facts that I'm only getting bits and pieces of.

---

Infowars...by which you should read, "Alex Jones"...is not a source. They are lying to you.You know this because you've been shown how Alex Jones is a liar and is not to be trusted.So why are you giving him credit?Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.You are not being told "historical facts." You are being lied to. You know you are being lied to. You've been shown how they lie to you. And yet, you still think you can trust them.Indeed, Lincoln had some issues regarding habeas corpus during the Civil War. But here's a question, Faith: Why didn't you know this? Shouldn't you have done your homework first? And now that you know that there were issues regarding Lincoln's presidency, are you going to trust a known liar like Alex Jones and Infowars regarding it?

quote:

---

It's so frustrating to get such important information in an audio format.

---

You do realize that the history of the Civil War is not an audiobook or radio program, yes? That you can go to the library and look it up? The staff there will be very helpful in finding out the legal battles fought during the Civil War.Do you even know what the court battle was about? Does the name "Merryman" mean anything to you?And the Merryman case is especially important in the current context. Do you know why?If not, what makes you think you're in a position to have anything of use to say on the subject? Especially if you are getting your information from a known liar such as Infowars?

Faith writes: [quote]So here's Frontpagemag on the subject[//quote]Front Page Magazine...and by that you should read, "David Horowitz" who has ties to Breitbart...is not a source. They are lying to you. Your own quote cites Tucker Carlson, another known liar.So why are you giving him credit?Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.

quote:

---

I am of course very pleased to find out that my own rough judgments of the ruling are confirmed by many of the opinions I'm discovering.

---

You are pleased to be lied to?Oh, that's right...political correctness. You must deny any opinion that seems "liberal" lest you be considered "liberal." It would be politically incorrect to have a stance that seems "liberal," and thus, you avoid such in order to be politically correct.

quote:

---

Shows I really do think like a conservative -- meaning, of course, that I'm tuned into the Constitution and to Truth.

---

Lying for Jesus isn't a sin?Are you truly claiming that lies, so long as they conform to your opinions, are no longer lies?