Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 5:47 AM
270 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 268 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,305 Year: 28,911/21,208 Month: 977/1,847 Week: 352/475 Day: 15/102 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4344
45
4647
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 661 of 992 (799493)
02-10-2017 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 659 by NoNukes
02-10-2017 3:54 PM


I find it hilarious that you aren't sure exactly what the conservative reasoning is, but you are sure that you will agree with it once you find it. Who acts like that?

Classic liberal lies.

Clearly Faith is looking for something that she agrees with so that she can call it Truly Conservative.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 3:54 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 662 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 4:08 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 665 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 4:31 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26734
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 662 of 992 (799494)
02-10-2017 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Modulous
02-10-2017 4:03 PM


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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 4:03 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 663 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2017 4:21 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 664 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 4:26 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 672 by jar, posted 02-10-2017 6:01 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 676 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 6:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13369
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 663 of 992 (799495)
02-10-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by Faith
02-10-2017 4:08 PM


Instead of just getting opinions and choosing the one you like maybe you should try understanding the issues. You should be seriously embarrassed posting nonsense like Message 652
This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 4:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10124
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 664 of 992 (799496)
02-10-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by Faith
02-10-2017 4:08 PM


Actually I just need to get the conservative point of view to counter the effect of the wall of liberal/leftist opinion at EvC.

"The conservative point of view"?

Assuming that there is some monolithic view, or at least a conservative majority view, presenting that would be a very productive thing to do; assuming that the point of view includes the legal reasoning to back up the conservative position. I would find that hugely helpful even if I ultimately end up disagreeing.

Faith writes:

I don't know yet exactly where my own opinion will end up.

Sigh,

You've already told us that you expect to agree with the conservative opinion. I just wonder if you'll ever have any legal reasoning to back up your opinion. Muslims suck isn't going to carry the day for me at least. What's left for you other than finding some rationale that is not totally wingnut.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 4:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10124
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 665 of 992 (799497)
02-10-2017 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Modulous
02-10-2017 4:03 PM


Clearly Faith is looking for something that she agrees with so that she can call it Truly Conservative.

Your "Truly Conservative" idea had crossed my mind. Clearly, having conservative leaning judges reach the same opinion as the other judges is a fact that only raises questions those judges real right-mindedness and conservative bona fides.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 4:03 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 666 of 992 (799499)
02-10-2017 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Modulous
02-09-2017 3:10 PM


Re: Let's have apostate immigration
Mod writes:

bluegenes writes:

The belief that people should be killed because of their religious beliefs, or lack of them, is in direct conflict with the part of the constitution it's being suggested has been contravened. If the judges are going to assess risk to life, which, you say, can be used to justify religious discrimination, assessing the proportion of the religious adherents who hold such beliefs is certainly relevant.

Sure, one could make that argument, indeed one could make the argument for all sorts of people presenting a risk to life - the point again is that if the US decided it want to adopt this kind of criteria, it couldn't only apply it to Muslims. Christians and Jews who think gays should be put to death should face the same scrutiny, for instance.

They could just ban all religions if it can be reasonably demonstrated that more than 25% of adherents believe in the killing of apostates. Effectively singling out Islam without doing so technically. It's religious discrimination of sorts, but would be argued on the basis that it's happening a lot in the in the Muslim world. When radical Sunni groups kill random Shia, they do it on that theological basis. Of course, if you could easily identify the 25+%, you just ban them. Sectarian religious discrimination.

Mod writes:

bluegenes writes:


While Faith is greatly exaggerating the evils of Islam, it's important that others don't lean too far the other way. I questioned your "nearly all" with the example of the young Brits being 36% in favour of apostate killing.

Well now you know I was talking about membership in terrorist organisations so this point is moot.

As Faith might point out, Mohammed was a religious terrorist in his later life. So what does that make the followers?

Mod writes:

And nearly all Muslims are NOT members of terrorist organisations etc, therefore the plain interpretation of the law is clear: The President does not have the power to deny them all visas.

Many of the Islamic attacks have been committed by people who are not members of "terrorist organisations", unless following Mohammed counts.

Mod writes:

You might have a valid argument here, if Congress had issued a law declaring it valid for the President to deny Muslims on the grounds that most of them have beliefs that are a threat to life - though I'd still argue this was empirically false. Most Muslims aren't murderers, after all.

You'd never ban any group on that basis, unless it was very small. Most neo Nazis aren't murderers. What percentage of the modern KKK have actually lynched someone? The percentage that might believe that anyone should be lynched could be a lot less than 36%.

The thing is, about the threat to life angle, how many lives does that mean?

Mod writes:

Believing there should be a death penalty for x or y does not mean one necessarily executes people for those offences.

Of course. Most of those amongst the Sunni who regard the Shia as apostates haven't personally executed one. But lots have been killed.

Mod writes:

bluegenes writes:

Mine is maybe more to do with the idea that even if it did clearly discriminate against Muslims (like Trump's original suggestion) that still wouldn't make it unconstitutional because it could be justified.

The question is, is the justification sufficient? And that's what the courts are there for. I would argue, that banning all Muslims cannot be sufficiently justified on the grounds they pose a threat using the evidence that they don't. There are 3 million Muslims in the USA, nearly as many in the UK. I don't see any evidence they are so much more criminally inclined than anyone else that it would justify denying all Muslims just to be on the safe side.

You could probably find interesting prison stats from here in the U.K., and things like rape conviction stats in Denmark, but as you know, you have to be careful if it's right wing websites reporting these. I don't know about the U.S.

I think, especially if Trump doesn't get his way, that the Muslims might, per. head of population, be more likely to be the victims of terrorism then non-Muslim Americans over the next few years (lone wolf stuff, like the Quebec attack recently). But America can't lock up all its Faith types. As you would point out, most or almost all of them aren't murderers.

Mod writes:

And it would certainly be a problem if they didn't also deny Christians and Jews etc with the same problematic beliefs as Muslims.

If it's so difficult to make the case for Muslims after September 11th, it would be impossible with any other religion, I would have thought.

Mod writes:

YES!!! That's what I've been saying. Discrimination is not forbidden! Discrimination BECAUSE OF RELIGION ALONE is forbidden, but discrimination on the basis of membership in a religious terrorist organisation or because you have committed murder and intend to continue doing so is perfectly legitimate.

But that, surely, is discrimination "because of the religion alone". If certain types of killing are amongst the tenets and historical practices of a specific religion, they are part of it.

Mohammed would be on the banned list, if he was still around. But not those, apparently, who are members of his organisation.

Mod writes:

bluegenes writes:

That 36% apostate killers would be compatible with the 17th century West, but isn't with the 21st, 20th or 19th.

Are you claiming that 36% of UK students would actually commit murder?

I see why you ask. They are part of the larger group in world Islam who support the killing of apostates. Apostates get killed, so the group are apostate killers in the sense that the Nazis were Jew killers, even though most, probably almost all, did not actually kill a single Jew with their own hands.

Mod writes:

Or have you taken 'should be punished by death' and converted it to 'will kill'?

No. More like "have killed" and "are killing", as a group.

The last hanging for heresy in Britain was around 1690. Many people would have supported this, but that doesn't mean they were all volunteering to be the hangman. If hardly anyone had supported it, it wouldn't have happened. The supporters killed the heretic, in a sense. That's one reason why I mentioned the seventeenth century in relation to the "apostate killers".

Mod writes:

bluegenes writes:

Our 18th century just didn't happen in the Islamic world, and it's arguably suffering from that fact.

This is, in fact, not true. It did happen. In the late days of the Ottoman empire a strong trend of thought was to embrace Western ideas, reject sectarianism, accept secularism and so on. The most striking modern day remnant of that movement is Turkey (who, for instance, decriminalized homosexuality in the 19th Century, beating the West to that liberal victory by a century).

That's not what I meant. A pioneering society evolving over a long period of time in a way which involves related changes in science, technology, the arts, religious, philosophical, social and political thought is not the same as a ruling class looking at the results in such societies and then trying to replicate them by imposing change artificially top downwards. It's not surprising that that did not really work.

Edited by bluegenes, : ABE: And have a good weekend, BTW!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2017 3:10 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 6:37 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26734
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 667 of 992 (799501)
02-10-2017 5:28 PM


Another Conservative Source Weighs In
So here's Frontpagemag on the subject:

The open-borders crowd doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. That may be why at a press conference celebrating the outrageous ruling, a member of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s (D) team deployed the phrase “social justice” to justify the decision. “Social justice” is a magical amulet that nullifies anything the Left doesn’t like, including the president’s executive order. Its very invocation is an admission that a cause is illegitimate and un-American.

The Ninth Circuit’s fairy dust-based decision is “an intellectually dishonest piece of work,” said retired Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Tucker Carlson was in fine form last night as he roughed up the platitude-spouting, Haitian-born District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine (D) on television.

Racine, who supported the lawsuit by filing an amicus brief, absurdly argued EO 13769 was “discriminatory to a certain religion” and therefore violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

Carlson retorted that “there is a precedent for singling out people for special treatment because of religion” and that the U.S. had used “explicit religious tests until pretty recently.” Until September 1988, he said, the U.S. granted refugee status to Soviet Jews because they were persecuted in their home country.

Probably the two most in/sane legal principles invented in the decision are (1) that everyone, everywhere on the planet enjoys due process rights under the U.S. Constitution, and 2) that courts can second-guess a national security-related executive order based on something other than the actual words in the order.

That a panel of the notoriously left-wing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit committed this unlawful, unconstitutional atrocity is not surprising but it is still unsettling. In the decision Judges William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland, substituted their vision of how to conduct foreign affairs for the nation’s elected president. The ruling not only violates separation of powers but also constitutes an attack on the status of the president as Commander-in-Chief charged with protecting the United States.

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

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 5:37 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 669 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2017 5:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 686 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 7:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10124
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 668 of 992 (799502)
02-10-2017 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 667 by Faith
02-10-2017 5:28 PM


Re: Another Conservative Source Weighs In
Nice try Faith.

We know that wingnuts don't want Muslims in this country. I know that you can find other wingnuts who agree with you. You are not alone. I suppose that is some comfort to you. Now what would be great to see, if you can provide it, is any legal leg for those opinions to stand on.

What you posted is very lean on any argument. Of the statements in the quoted section, only one is remotely close to an argument rather than insult and attacks on the court without presenting any analysis.

Carlson retorted that “there is a precedent for singling out people for special treatment because of religion” and that the U.S. had used “explicit religious tests until pretty recently.” Until September 1988, he said, the U.S. granted refugee status to Soviet Jews because they were persecuted in their home country.

Really, an argument for not keeping Jews out, or not exercising an executive power to discriminate against someone is relevant how exactly? Remember the complaint is that due process is being violated. How does admitting folks violate their due process rights?

Can you distinguish between an argument and a bunch of blowhards just complaining? I certainly can. I know that you don't require any argument to be persuaded of what you already know to be true, but this is a debate not an assertion exchange.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 5:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13369
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 669 of 992 (799503)
02-10-2017 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 667 by Faith
02-10-2017 5:28 PM


Re: Another Conservative Source Weighs In
The case isn't about open borders. There is no decision on the religious discrimination claim at this point. The court only found that persons within U.S. Territory had Due Process rights. And there was no second-guessing of National Security concerns, just an unwillingnes to believe a plaintiff who refused to provide evidence.

So is your Conservative source ignorant or actively dishonest ? Nobody who had actually read the ruling could honestly get so much wrong.

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. Shows I really do think like a conservative.

Since your sources are all hopelessly wrong that is a pretty damning criticism of conservatism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 5:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 670 of 992 (799504)
02-10-2017 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by Faith
02-10-2017 3:24 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
I do confess to being Terrorismphobic.

I don't blame you. In the last 15 years about 65 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks in the US. Sixty percent of those were killed by Christian extremists. The rest were jihadists, for sure, with exactly none of them (that's a 0 with a point 00 after it) coming from Trump's banned nations.

This is a dangerous country, especially when you consider that more than 406,000 Americans were shot dead in this same period by gun extremists including about 2500 shooting deaths by (not of) gun-toting toddlers.

I should imagine you are also a gunnutphobic. Gotta watch out for those six-year-olds.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 5:58 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26734
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 671 of 992 (799507)
02-10-2017 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by AZPaul3
02-10-2017 5:51 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
Islam itself is ideologically terrorist. Period.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2017 5:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2017 6:05 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 687 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 7:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 690 by Riggamortis, posted 02-10-2017 8:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29787
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 672 of 992 (799508)
02-10-2017 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by Faith
02-10-2017 4:08 PM


one size don't fit all.
Faith writes:

Actually I just need to get the conservative point of view to counter the effect of the wall of liberal/leftist opinion at EvC.

Faith, I am a Conservative and a Republican and a Christian. My point of view differs in many things from yours. That does not mean that I am not a Christian, Conservative Republican.

Sorry Faith but them's the facts.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 4:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(1)
Message 673 of 992 (799509)
02-10-2017 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Faith
02-10-2017 5:58 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
Islam itself is ideologically terrorist. Period.

Apparently, from their actions in this country, so are Christians to a larger extent than Muslims. We need some extreme vetting for churchgoers.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 5:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 674 of 992 (799511)
02-10-2017 6:15 PM


No SCOTUS, yet.
Preliminary reports indicate that the administration has decided not to appeal directly to the Supreme Court but will keep the fight within the lower courts for now.

Reports also indicate the administration is considering re-writing and re-issuing this executive order. Maybe this time they'll do the extreme vetting through the various affected departments and get some useful realistic input. Maybe this time Donald will understand what he is signing.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.



  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6227
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 675 of 992 (799512)
02-10-2017 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 625 by PaulK
02-10-2017 10:10 AM


Re: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stomps mudhole in Trump Executive Order
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."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2017 10:10 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
4344
45
4647
...
67NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017