Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Well, I disagree with that, but to come back to a point I made earlier, this is a quotation from you earlier in this thread: How do you feel about Trump's speech, separating the minority of terrorist murderers from the vast majority of peaceful Muslims ? He's acknowledging, accepting even celebrating Islam in that speech. Has he got that wrong ? Is he lying ?

There's a difference between addressing people in the Middle East and considering inviting them into the US. I don't know if he's hoping to encourage the moderates among them or really believes that about Islam. I think it's mostly the former but I'm not sure at this point. Bush really did believe that Islam is a religion of peace, a total delusion. I think it's good to appeal to those Muslims who don't want to live their ideology to the max, but never forget that the ideology itself is a murderous\ totalitarianism.

You hate people who disagree with you or who have different opinions and world view than your own. How deserving is that?I appreciate the honesty.

I hate ideologies, not people. I hate Leftism with a purple passion.(You have a TERRIBLE reading problem, or logic problem, as I've pointed out before. You just about never get anything right that I say)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I suppose that this stuff is easily dismissed as just the press lying again. To be fair, Trump's message was a mix of condemnation of Islamic terrorism in very general and strong terms, and praise for Islam as a religion. But there is no escaping that Trump drew a distinction between terrorism as a false practice of Islam and the Islamic religion. I don't expect you to ever do that.I'll note also that Trump said nothing to the Saudi's about human rights violations.Clearly Trump's position as expressed this weekend is somewhere north of your own.

Then you don't express yourself very well. You aim your words at people. You said that you hated some specific founding fathers because of their ideologies. Either you are not telling the truth now, or you didn't tell the truth then.You've also express wishes for ill on folks here. That's not just hate for their ideology.Nobody here hates people more than you do.ABE: Message 589Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So on balance, you feel he was lying about his true views as to Islam ?

So hardly ever then, I guess.But by that logic, these lawyers must be taking advantage of immigrants enough too because there is that law in place that is being used to try to stop them.Regardless, this doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

I believe the EXACT opposite, but you already knew that you're just trolling. And you're a moderator here? Why am I not surprised?(I'm jealous of DavidJay, he's been getting all the suspensions lately, cm-on, let me have it! I'll toss and turn all night!)

5th Amendment;

quote:

---

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

Let me guess, in between the words "person" and "shall", you pulled the words "including anyone in the world who illegally enters the U.S. no matter how they did it", out of thin air?14th amendment;

quote:

---

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

So you believe when it said "any person" later in the text, without specifying that it was referring to U.S. citizens, that means the founders intended for it to include illegal aliens who entered the U.S. no matter how they did it?The above was section 1 only, do you find welcoming references to illegal immigrants in sections 2 thru 5? I have to ask, since liberals seem to find no rights for the people to keep and bear arms in the second amendment.As I've said before, the only reason I come to this funny place is to try to get some understanding of how the liberal mind works. Seldom does anyone seem to want to help me. They just troll, and don't answer my questions.

I must have missed it. Could you link me to that?

Marc writes: DAMN STRAIGHT. Any person means any human being. Most literate people read it that way. What's wrong with your interpretation? Due process and equal protection mean what they mean.Edited by xongsmith, : any human

I remember reading this here before, but we can only expect and demand that Americans are given due process and equal protection in other countries if every person is given the same treatment here in the U.S.

dragonfly writes: Yes, I understand that and agree. We are supposed to better, aren't we?. They won't be so eager to treat us that way if we don't. This is a unilateral principle, isn't it? A 'cross we have to bear?"Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

Here's an explanation of my interpretation; That amendment was written about the end of slavery. There was no intent involved to include illegal aliens. Let's look at the first sentence;

quote:

---

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

---

That was intended to give new citizenship rights to former slaves, and it was a pre-cursor to what was about to follow. If this amendment was written to include BOTH former slaves and anyone else in the world who made it into the U.S. by any means, there would be NO REASON for that sentence to be in there. It has always been common knowledge, that, unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers etc. that the Constitution and Bill of Rights had great pains taken in their writings to be brief and concise. 100 years later, the same pains were taken with new amendments. They wouldn't have wasted that sentence if it was not absolutely necessary for it to be in there. And it didn't in any way point towards illegal aliens, it pointed away from them.Now for the next sentence;

quote:

---

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

---

Why do you think it said "citizens"? Why didn't it say "inhabitants"?Now for the final part;

quote:

---

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Here it just says "person" twice, but it addresses liberty and property. Something no rational person expects a criminal illegal to have.I don't advocate cruel and unusual punishments for illegals. But it costs money to lavishly provide them with speedy trials and air conditioned jail cells and all the other things todays U.S. citizen criminals enjoy. There can be downgraded, cheaper methods to deal with them. At $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. can't afford anything more.As I've said elsewhere with no meaningful response, the liberal left has 2 choices, they can try to say the current U.S. Constitution is outdated and should be replaced, (an honest assessment of their opinion) or they can try to twist and distort the current U.S. Constitution and claim it's a socialist document. I'm glad they've chosen the latter, it's part of the reason why Republicans now have 2/3 of the governorships, majorities in the House and Senate, and the presidency. Today's voters are waking up more and more to the dishonesty of Democrats.