Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeek Daniels View Post
    And again if your banning a targeted religion then why is he banning ALL citizens from these few countries? All im saying is people using "muslim" ban are dishonest people. Acting like it is when there are Christians and other religions that are negatively affected as well. Just because Trump said he wants to ban Muslims temporarily does not mean its a Muslim ban. Its a ban against citizens of certain nations. Plain and simple.

    There was a clause for minority religions to get processed faster.

  2. #182
    Bloodsail Admiral LaserChild9's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Under your Desk
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I cannot guess with any degree of accuracy what the United States would look like if the founding stock of the country did not allow additional people in. It'd be a lot different and likely a lot worse, but I have no idea if it would have continued to exist.

    This is a really weird argument though. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. You're just kind of engaging in weird sidetracks rather than admitting that the nation wasn't actually founded by immigrants. In any case, none of this really has any bearing on whether a ban on immigration from a given set of countries in 2017 is a good idea or a bad idea.
    The nation would not exist without immigrants though. You have just stated that had the founding members of the US decided no more immigrants the country would likely be a lot worse and even speculated on whether it would have continued to exist.

    This argument has everything to do with this thread and its not a weird sidetrack. The point that you have just proved for me is that immigration can be good, it can be very good in fact. Indiscriminately placing blanket bans on an entire nation of people who have done nothing wrong, ever, based of fear mongering with no facts is not a good thing. trumps ban is only being done to win over the bigots and small minded people who are so dumb they need someone to tell them how to think. Look at these 2:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZXOydtO5Ww

  3. #183
    The Insane Thage's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground
    Posts
    19,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    There was a clause for minority religions to get processed faster.
    Joe, you, uh, you ok there, guy? You're looking a little green And glowy. Might wanna slow it down on the Slurm.

    On-Topic: As I said back on page 1, I'd believe it was about security if there were any US attacks from the countries listed, and Trump didn't just happen to leave out any countries he has imminent business deals with, and if there weren't clauses for non-Muslims from those areas to be processed faster, and if the guy didn't campaign on constantly discussing Muslim bans and registries.
    Be seeing you guys on Bloodsail Buccaneers NA!



  4. #184
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,987
    Quote Originally Posted by LaserChild9 View Post
    The nation would not exist without immigrants though.
    But we also wouldn't have Trump without immigrants, so there's that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thage View Post
    Joe, you, uh, you ok there, guy? You're looking a little green And glowy. Might wanna slow it down on the Slurm.

    On-Topic: As I said back on page 1, I'd believe it was about security if there were any US attacks from the countries listed, and Trump didn't just happen to leave out any countries he has imminent business deals with, and if there weren't clauses for non-Muslims from those areas to be processed faster, and if the guy didn't campaign on constantly discussing Muslim bans and registries.
    Don't forget that it's also only for 120 days, so even if it was about security etc, it wouldn't accomplish anything but to make the US look like a bunch of dicks and serve as an ISIS recruiting tool.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeek Daniels View Post
    And again if your banning a targeted religion then why is he banning ALL citizens from these few countries? All im saying is people using "muslim" ban are dishonest people. Acting like it is when there are Christians and other religions that are negatively affected as well. Just because Trump said he wants to ban Muslims temporarily does not mean its a Muslim ban. Its a ban against citizens of certain nations. Plain and simple.
    And I know that technically it isn't a Muslim ban. Banning a religion is practically impossible. What is hurting Trump is his previous statements on promising such a ban. Judges are using that plus the fact that the ban list consists of mostly Muslims to conclude that the EO is religiously motivated.
    The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.

  6. #186
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Thage View Post
    Joe, you, uh, you ok there, guy? You're looking a little green And glowy. Might wanna slow it down on the Slurm.

    On-Topic: As I said back on page 1, I'd believe it was about security if there were any US attacks from the countries listed, and Trump didn't just happen to leave out any countries he has imminent business deals with, and if there weren't clauses for non-Muslims from those areas to be processed faster, and if the guy didn't campaign on constantly discussing Muslim bans and registries.

    Bev has been around the office again.(Credit to Winter Blossom)



    I agree. If the ban was based on fact and used logic instead of fear mongering. I might support it.

  7. #187
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by patriothammer View Post


    A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday against blocking President Trump’s executive order that called for temporarily stopping the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugee admittance overall.

    The decision against the injunction comes after federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order nationwide. The ruling in Maryland is set to be heard before an appeals court in May. These two past decisions keep the order at bay.
    Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

    Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion that “the President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He said that the executive order makes no mention of religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
    The Hawaiian federal judge who knocked down the executive order cited past statements from Trump on the campaign trail talking about a “Muslim ban.” Judge Trenga, however, wrote, “In that regard, the Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter.'”

    A Department of Justice spokeswoman said in a statement, “The Department of Justice is pleased with the ruling. As the Court correctly explains, the President’s Executive Order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation’s security.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/24/ju...ck-travel-ban/
    Sad thing indeed I feel sorry for USA, as the judges care so little for human life.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Blastfizzle View Post
    Sad thing indeed I feel sorry for USA, as the judges care so little for human life.
    Yes they really want to feed us the the Muslim hordes that are just waaaaiting to come and get us. Readjust the strapes on your head, please.

    Also 3rd times a charm I guess?

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    Guess who created the people who created the people who created the people who created the country? Immigrants.

    I guess that's his argument. Either way, immigrants have always been an important part of America but to say it was created by immigrants is a bad argument only backed up by the terrible semantics argument above.

    By that logic, every single person that isn't 100% native american is an immigrant.
    Yeah, well, the ancestors of the Native-Americans walked on over as well. See? All nations are nations of immigrants. Therefore it's unreasonable to ban immigration from Somalia for a few years. QED.

  10. #190
    Bloodsail Admiral LaserChild9's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Under your Desk
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    But we also wouldn't have Trump without immigrants, so there's that.
    I do love the Irony of that lol.
    Last edited by LaserChild9; 2017-03-25 at 08:15 PM.

  11. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeek Daniels View Post
    And again if your banning a targeted religion then why is he banning ALL citizens from these few countries? All im saying is people using "muslim" ban are dishonest people. Acting like it is when there are Christians and other religions that are negatively affected as well. Just because Trump said he wants to ban Muslims temporarily does not mean its a Muslim ban. Its a ban against citizens of certain nations. Plain and simple.
    Again, one doesn't need to target all members of a group to be targeting that group. If you're a serial killer and you're killing women, the fact that you haven't killed every woman doesn't mean that you aren't targeting women. The fact that you also killed a man in 70 women doesn't mean that you aren't targeting women.

    And are you really asking why he didn't outright come out and say every Muslim from every country is banned? Uhh, because he's trying to get it passed, perhaps? And that would be obviously unconstitutional, and he was banking on this to loop-hole its way through.

    Trump Asks Giuliana How to do a Muslim Ban Legally

    This fallacy that "it's not a Muslim ban because every Muslim on the planet wasn't targetted!!!!" is exactly that--false.

    It's a Muslim ban. You can choose to shove your fingers as deep in your ear canals as possible and say otherwise, but so far the courts disagree with you. He wanted to ban Muslims, he said he wanted to ban Muslims (repeatedly, constantly at his rallys and throughout the campaign), he asked others how to ban Muslims legally, and he released a ban that targets countries from which zero terrorist attacks have happened in the USA and which are predominately Muslim, misappropriating a list from the Obama administration because it made it simpler. The percentage of people, by race/religion, that are affected by the ban is almost entirely anti-Muslim.

    If you could show him a way to ban every Muslim on the planet, he'd invite you to meet.

    So he's a serial killer attacking Muslims, and your defense is "well some are still alive so no he isn't!!!! He killed a christian once too!"

    Mmmhmm. Okay boo.
    Last edited by drakensoul; 2017-03-25 at 08:25 PM.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by Blastfizzle View Post
    Sad thing indeed I feel sorry for USA, as the judges care so little for human life.
    Kind of funny as not a single person from any of those countries has commited a terrorist act going back yrs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedi Batman View Post
    Sounds like a euphemism for real life. We throw money at the rich, in hopes that we will someday be rich, and then we get hookers to piss on us. That's what trickle down economics really is.

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Don't forget that it's also only for 120 days, so even if it was about security etc, it wouldn't accomplish anything but to make the US look like a bunch of dicks and serve as an ISIS recruiting tool.
    It is an absurd statement that not allowing refugees in will result in more people becoming terrorists, because this implies that if you allow refugees in you are inevitably letting people in who have a proclivity towards becoming terrorists, which means in the future you will have a population within your country that is likely to engage in terrorism if they are not appeased. The logic behind this is self detonating, because the only rational conclusion from the fact pattern presented is that allowing refugees in will result in your country being held hostage to terrorists.
    Most people would rather die than think, and most people do. -Bertrand Russell
    Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity - too bad for you -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  14. #194
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    19,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Obviously this isn't straw - the argument is about whether the United States has any valid or rational basis to restrict immigration and/or travel from certain countries in 2017. The repeated mantra to support the idea that the United States has no such valid or rational basis for restriction of immigration and/or travel is that the country was "built by immigrants". It's an absurd argument, but people keep trotting it out.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Do you think an American in 2017 should find this a compelling argument for not controlling flow of immigration? That the lesson that should be taken from 16th century European colonization is that the hosts really have nothing to worry about?
    You cant really or shouldnt really ask that when you put up consitutionality of law as being an important or prime factor in considering legislation. Dont you think in america in 2017 you should find a better argument for legislation than constituionality?
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    You cant really or shouldnt really ask that when you put up consitutionality of law as being an important or prime factor in considering legislation. Dont you think in america in 2017 you should find a better argument for legislation than constituionality?
    I don't know what you're driving at. I agree that constitutionality is crucial. I also think there's no plausible argument to be made that it's unconstitutional for the United States to restrict immigration or travel based on nation of origin.
    Last edited by Spectral; 2017-03-25 at 08:33 PM.

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Are we making a distinction now? Because none of the countries on the ban had nationals that participated in attacks against the US in any major way.
    Well, if you want to get technical, one of the big reasons random Saudi nationals end up radicalized is that the unpopular and hardline Saudi royals don't support undermining the United States and effectively biting the hand that feeds them. Since these individuals can't operate openly inside Saudi borders because they would be put on pikes for the masses, they use other more sympathetic vectors to enter the West and launch their attacks. Vectors which would be denied to them if the travel restrictions were to be enforced.
    OMG 13:37 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Cleave unto me, and I shall grant to thee the blessing of eternal salvation."

    And His disciples said unto Him, "Can we get Kings instead?"

  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I don't know what you're driving at. I agree that constitutionality is crucial. I also think there's no plausible argument to be made that it's unconstitutional for the United States to restrict immigration or travel based on nation of origin.
    Restricting based solely on nation of origin should be unconstitutional. There should be a substantive reason for restricting or blocking, not just 'CAUSE THEY'RE SWEDES!!!!

    So if there's a specific problem, and immigration from a country is demonstrably worsening that problem, then a temporary stay could be applied based on that problem, not based on someone's nation of origin. Restricting based solely on nationality is... racist? Nationist? Some kind of -ist that shouldn't exist in this day and age.

    We already went through another version of this. This is why people make such a "nation of immigrants!" cry, because of faulty reasoning that focuses on people's nationality, race, religion instead of an actual underlying factual problem.
    Last edited by drakensoul; 2017-03-25 at 08:41 PM.

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by drakensoul View Post
    ...and he released a ban that targets countries from which zero terrorist attacks have happened in the USA...
    Minor point of order - it takes a pretty narrow definition of terrorism to not include the Ohio State attack.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by drakensoul View Post
    Restricting based solely on nation of origin should be unconstitutional. There should be a substantive reason for restricting or blocking, not just 'CAUSE THEY'RE SWEDES!!!!

    So if there's a specific problem, and immigration from a country is demonstrably worsening that problem, then a temporary stay could be applied based on that problem, not based on someone's nation of origin. Restricting based solely on nationality is... racist? Nationist? Some kind of -ist that shouldn't exist in this day and age.
    Surely you see why I don't find this argument compelling, right? I don't think, "that must be unconstitutional, it's racist or something" is really much of a bedrock legal principle.

    Also, once again, because people still seem to be conflating whether I think something is a good idea with whether I think it's constitutional - I think this is generally a pretty bad idea. I would pretty much always rather screen immigrants on an individual basis. However, it's surely not unconstitutional to restrict immigration based on more or less any arbitrary criteria the federal government concocts.

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Minor point of order - it takes a pretty narrow definition of terrorism to not include the Ohio State attack.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Surely you see why I don't find this argument compelling, right? I don't think, "that must be unconstitutional, it's racist or something" is really much of a bedrock legal principle.

    Also, once again, because people still seem to be conflating whether I think something is a good idea with whether I think it's constitutional - I think this is generally a pretty bad idea. I would pretty much always rather screen immigrants on an individual basis. However, it's surely not unconstitutional to restrict immigration based on more or less any arbitrary criteria the federal government concocts.
    It's a human principle. Discriminating based on the fact that you were born in another country, have a different skin color, have a different gender, or any other inalterably innate principle is discrimination. No one likes to be discriminated against, it feels wrong and it is wrong.
    Welcome to 3rd grade? To American History? To every conversation you've ever had with your parents about morality?

    There's no legal reason to constitutionalize said discrimination -- just make law that deals with real underlying facts.

    If discriminating against people doesn't strike a cord with you, that's your problem not mine. Perhaps that's why you're getting so much "a nation of immigrants!!" response to your posts: You (seemingly) don't understand that what you're suggesting is innately detestable and prejudiced.

    There is a big difference between banning someone based on their skin and banning someone because they in some measurable way are destroying an institution. A fact that doesn't require you to find it compelling.
    Last edited by drakensoul; 2017-03-25 at 08:48 PM.

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Also, once again, because people still seem to be conflating whether I think something is a good idea with whether I think it's constitutional - I think this is generally a pretty bad idea. I would pretty much always rather screen immigrants on an individual basis. However, it's surely not unconstitutional to restrict immigration based on more or less any arbitrary criteria the federal government concocts.
    The ban is actually constitutional now that it is properly written, the argument against it mostly have to do with intent which is why they use Trump and his surrogate's words against him. Since Gorsuch will most likely be confirmed to me this will probably end up being upheld by the supreme court along partisan lines but it will be a long and painful process.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •