Text of Muslim Ban Executive Order in a few posts

1246710

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,226
    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    Ms. Haiku said:

    Heather Richardson, Professor of History, Boston College wrote in a Twitter thread that this Executive Order is a "shock event." That it causes chaos to ultimately get what Trump wants which is Sessions elected. She has a long Twitter thread for this, but this following tweet is part of it.

    https://twitter.com/womanistpsych
    Jefferson Sessions being received as the acceptable one, as head of DOJ, to restore order to Bannon's generated chaos is one of the setups.

    Do you think this is a shock event, and that Sessions as AG could be the goal?

    I'm not completely convinced that this is a "shock event." It looks like Trump is doing what he said he would do. I think the Executive Order for the wall could be considered a shock event as well, but putting a wall up was part of his presidential campaign.


    So was banning Muslims.
    Fake news. Muslims are not banned.
    According to JC, 12% of muslims are banned.
    Based on country, not religion.

    Countries that Obama picked.

    None of you protested when he froze visas.
    did you happen to see Guiliani's interview? he stated precisely that Trump asked him how to legally construct a muslim ban. he said it more than once, that yes, this is indeed a muslim ban. and it was guiliani's making.
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    If you believe in online polling, this one indicates that americans on split on the immigration ban. This one does account for those unaffiliated with D or R.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,226
    the last elections shows us that polls are worthless. although, when they favour trump, he seems to believe them all of a sudden.
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,485

    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    Ms. Haiku said:

    Heather Richardson, Professor of History, Boston College wrote in a Twitter thread that this Executive Order is a "shock event." That it causes chaos to ultimately get what Trump wants which is Sessions elected. She has a long Twitter thread for this, but this following tweet is part of it.

    https://twitter.com/womanistpsych
    Jefferson Sessions being received as the acceptable one, as head of DOJ, to restore order to Bannon's generated chaos is one of the setups.

    Do you think this is a shock event, and that Sessions as AG could be the goal?

    I'm not completely convinced that this is a "shock event." It looks like Trump is doing what he said he would do. I think the Executive Order for the wall could be considered a shock event as well, but putting a wall up was part of his presidential campaign.


    So was banning Muslims.
    Fake news. Muslims are not banned.
    According to JC, 12% of muslims are banned.
    Based on country, not religion.

    Countries that Obama picked.

    None of you protested when he froze visas.
    did you happen to see Guiliani's interview? he stated precisely that Trump asked him how to legally construct a muslim ban. he said it more than once, that yes, this is indeed a muslim ban. and it was guiliani's making.
    No, but I really don't care about what Rudy 9/11 has to say.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,226
    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    Ms. Haiku said:

    Heather Richardson, Professor of History, Boston College wrote in a Twitter thread that this Executive Order is a "shock event." That it causes chaos to ultimately get what Trump wants which is Sessions elected. She has a long Twitter thread for this, but this following tweet is part of it.

    https://twitter.com/womanistpsych
    Jefferson Sessions being received as the acceptable one, as head of DOJ, to restore order to Bannon's generated chaos is one of the setups.

    Do you think this is a shock event, and that Sessions as AG could be the goal?

    I'm not completely convinced that this is a "shock event." It looks like Trump is doing what he said he would do. I think the Executive Order for the wall could be considered a shock event as well, but putting a wall up was part of his presidential campaign.


    So was banning Muslims.
    Fake news. Muslims are not banned.
    According to JC, 12% of muslims are banned.
    Based on country, not religion.

    Countries that Obama picked.

    None of you protested when he froze visas.
    did you happen to see Guiliani's interview? he stated precisely that Trump asked him how to legally construct a muslim ban. he said it more than once, that yes, this is indeed a muslim ban. and it was guiliani's making.
    No, but I really don't care about what Rudy 9/11 has to say.
    then you aren't informed. he's the one who came up with the plan, and he stated on the record that trump asked him to implement a muslim ban.
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,485

    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    Ms. Haiku said:

    Heather Richardson, Professor of History, Boston College wrote in a Twitter thread that this Executive Order is a "shock event." That it causes chaos to ultimately get what Trump wants which is Sessions elected. She has a long Twitter thread for this, but this following tweet is part of it.

    https://twitter.com/womanistpsych
    Jefferson Sessions being received as the acceptable one, as head of DOJ, to restore order to Bannon's generated chaos is one of the setups.

    Do you think this is a shock event, and that Sessions as AG could be the goal?

    I'm not completely convinced that this is a "shock event." It looks like Trump is doing what he said he would do. I think the Executive Order for the wall could be considered a shock event as well, but putting a wall up was part of his presidential campaign.


    So was banning Muslims.
    Fake news. Muslims are not banned.
    According to JC, 12% of muslims are banned.
    Based on country, not religion.

    Countries that Obama picked.

    None of you protested when he froze visas.
    From Global Citizen:

    This policy orders the:
    • Complete suspension of travel from seven predominantly Muslim nationalities — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. This includes dual-nationals, green card holders, and most visa-holders.
    • Full suspension of US refugee program for 120 days as new “extreme vetting” rules are developed, even though America already has the toughest vetting program for refugees in the world.
    • Halving America’s refugee intake to a maximum of 50,000 annually, with a complete ban on admitting refugees from war-torn Syria.
    Exemption for those of a “minority religion” in each of these countries — a phrase that can only be interpreted to exclude Muslims on the basis of their religion.
    Oh no!

    There is an exemption for that Iranian filmaker too!

    Oh the humanity!
    So you're defending misguided government policy? Oh the irony!
    Misguided? No, clearly that is one function that the federal government is authorized to do. It doesn't go far enough.

    Don't you ever question why there are so many refugees?
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,104
    JC29856 said:

    If you believe in online polling, this one indicates that americans on split on the immigration ban. This one does account for those unaffiliated with D or R.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens

    Rasmussen almost always leans right, and the question they asked suggested there's no vetting process currently, so that makes this poll invalid.
  • dignindignin Posts: 6,930

    JC29856 said:

    If you believe in online polling, this one indicates that americans on split on the immigration ban. This one does account for those unaffiliated with D or R.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens

    Rasmussen almost always leans right, and the question they asked suggested there's no vetting process currently, so that makes this poll invalid.
    Thanks you for a great example of critical thinking. Always look at the question being asked in a poll.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Trump using the "vetting lapse" excuse to ban Muslims.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited January 2017
    Could have serious potential

    900 state department employees issue dissent to immigration ban

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15F2KP
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,960

    dignin said:

    Heard she has been fired.

    Trump fires defiant acting attorney general
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-executive-order-234401
    Hopefully people will follow her lead.... and join together to start the resistance.... That sounds like a cheezy movie line; I can't believe it's actually a statement that now has real meaning. Crazy times.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,104
    edited January 2017
    PJ_Soul said:

    dignin said:

    Heard she has been fired.

    Trump fires defiant acting attorney general
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-executive-order-234401
    Hopefully people will follow her lead.... and join together to start the resistance.... That sounds like a cheezy movie line; I can't believe it's actually a statement that now has real meaning. Crazy times.
    I'm picturing courts will be busy everywhere, because that's where a lot of the formalized resistance will happen. State's and cities are already suing, and State Supreme Courts and AGs will be pushing back on mandates from the White House.
    Post edited by Go Beavers on
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,536
    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.
    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • dignindignin Posts: 6,930
    I wouldn't have believed this actually happened given what happened yesterday. Watch the whole thing.



  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Legal precedent is not on the side of immigrants. I'm not sure what trumps "in the interest of national security", spying on Americans hasnt, habeas corpus hasn't and drone killing American citizens hasn't, good luck with immigrant vetting.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,960
    edited January 2017
    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Yeah.... such resistance doesn't seem to be working so far though, does it? They're completely ignoring the courts so far, fired the AG, set up Bannon on the National Security Council, has fired all kinds of experienced people from the Justice Department to create chaos, etc etc. TBH, I actually figured the President had less power than I'm discovering he has. A bunch of Americans have been saying for months that Trump/the POTUS can't just pull shit that will directly affect people (aside from pushing the buttons, basically) without checks and balances and debate. They kept saying some of us were paranoid.... well, those people were obviously mistaken in some regards.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,485

    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    Ms. Haiku said:

    Heather Richardson, Professor of History, Boston College wrote in a Twitter thread that this Executive Order is a "shock event." That it causes chaos to ultimately get what Trump wants which is Sessions elected. She has a long Twitter thread for this, but this following tweet is part of it.

    https://twitter.com/womanistpsych
    Jefferson Sessions being received as the acceptable one, as head of DOJ, to restore order to Bannon's generated chaos is one of the setups.

    Do you think this is a shock event, and that Sessions as AG could be the goal?

    I'm not completely convinced that this is a "shock event." It looks like Trump is doing what he said he would do. I think the Executive Order for the wall could be considered a shock event as well, but putting a wall up was part of his presidential campaign.


    So was banning Muslims.
    Fake news. Muslims are not banned.
    According to JC, 12% of muslims are banned.
    Based on country, not religion.

    Countries that Obama picked.

    None of you protested when he froze visas.
    did you happen to see Guiliani's interview? he stated precisely that Trump asked him how to legally construct a muslim ban. he said it more than once, that yes, this is indeed a muslim ban. and it was guiliani's making.
    No, but I really don't care about what Rudy 9/11 has to say.
    then you aren't informed. he's the one who came up with the plan, and he stated on the record that trump asked him to implement a muslim ban.
    If you say so, I just don't spend much capital on his opinion.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,485
    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Remember that C word the next time you talk about my gun rights.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,104
    JC29856 said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Legal precedent is not on the side of immigrants. I'm not sure what trumps "in the interest of national security", spying on Americans hasnt, habeas corpus hasn't and drone killing American citizens hasn't, good luck with immigrant vetting.
    Then you should pass that along to all the attorneys working on their court filings in opposition.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,226
    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    Ms. Haiku said:

    Heather Richardson, Professor of History, Boston College wrote in a Twitter thread that this Executive Order is a "shock event." That it causes chaos to ultimately get what Trump wants which is Sessions elected. She has a long Twitter thread for this, but this following tweet is part of it.

    https://twitter.com/womanistpsych
    Jefferson Sessions being received as the acceptable one, as head of DOJ, to restore order to Bannon's generated chaos is one of the setups.

    Do you think this is a shock event, and that Sessions as AG could be the goal?

    I'm not completely convinced that this is a "shock event." It looks like Trump is doing what he said he would do. I think the Executive Order for the wall could be considered a shock event as well, but putting a wall up was part of his presidential campaign.


    So was banning Muslims.
    Fake news. Muslims are not banned.
    According to JC, 12% of muslims are banned.
    Based on country, not religion.

    Countries that Obama picked.

    None of you protested when he froze visas.
    did you happen to see Guiliani's interview? he stated precisely that Trump asked him how to legally construct a muslim ban. he said it more than once, that yes, this is indeed a muslim ban. and it was guiliani's making.
    No, but I really don't care about what Rudy 9/11 has to say.
    then you aren't informed. he's the one who came up with the plan, and he stated on the record that trump asked him to implement a muslim ban.
    If you say so, I just don't spend much capital on his opinion.
    it wasn't his "opinion".
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,536
    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Remember that C word the next time you talk about my gun rights.
    The Constitution has always been a work in progress...the experiment that is America...that is slipping way.
    I mourn 93 additional dead Americans today.
    There is a reasonable place between someone's right to have guns and people's right to be safe and not be victimized. One doesn't trump the other and the founding fathers never imagined what's going on today.
    https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,104
    Unsung's convinced himself he's in the militia so he can cover his bases in a gun ownership argument.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,485
    Kat said:

    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Remember that C word the next time you talk about my gun rights.
    The Constitution has always been a work in progress...the experiment that is America...that is slipping way.
    I mourn 93 additional dead Americans today.
    There is a reasonable place between someone's right to have guns and people's right to be safe and not be victimized. One doesn't trump the other and the founding fathers never imagined what's going on today.
    https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

    Exactly. Your feelings don't trump my rights.

    I am guessing the founding fathers never anticipated more than two genders either.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,780
    edited January 2017
    Kat said:

    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Remember that C word the next time you talk about my gun rights.
    The Constitution has always been a work in progress...the experiment that is America...that is slipping way.
    I mourn 93 additional dead Americans today.
    There is a reasonable place between someone's right to have guns and people's right to be safe and not be victimized. One doesn't trump the other and the founding fathers never imagined what's going on today.
    https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

    I disagree and think that our founding fathers faced much more dire circumstances than we face today in our cushy little America. Not to mention having to deal with Muslim Pirates during the Barbary Wars...
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,104
    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Remember that C word the next time you talk about my gun rights.
    The Constitution has always been a work in progress...the experiment that is America...that is slipping way.
    I mourn 93 additional dead Americans today.
    There is a reasonable place between someone's right to have guns and people's right to be safe and not be victimized. One doesn't trump the other and the founding fathers never imagined what's going on today.
    https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

    Exactly. Your feelings don't trump my rights.

    I am guessing the founding fathers never anticipated more than two genders either.
    They didn't anticipate every change, but allowed for change at the same time. They probably figured we'd always have a need for a militia, and that women wouldn't ever be voting.
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,536
    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Remember that C word the next time you talk about my gun rights.
    The Constitution has always been a work in progress...the experiment that is America...that is slipping way.
    I mourn 93 additional dead Americans today.
    There is a reasonable place between someone's right to have guns and people's right to be safe and not be victimized. One doesn't trump the other and the founding fathers never imagined what's going on today.
    https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

    Exactly. Your feelings don't trump my rights.

    I am guessing the founding fathers never anticipated more than two genders either.
    Mischaracterizing my rights as feelings doesn't contribute to an honest discussion. I'm done.
    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617

    JC29856 said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Legal precedent is not on the side of immigrants. I'm not sure what trumps "in the interest of national security", spying on Americans hasnt, habeas corpus hasn't and drone killing American citizens hasn't, good luck with immigrant vetting.
    Then you should pass that along to all the attorneys working on their court filings in opposition.
    I didn't say it can't or shouldn't be challenged, I'm saying illegal spying and data collecting, allegations and trials for the accused and killing americans all have been litigated and defeated by the "national security".
    Like I said earlier let's wait and see how these lawsuits turn out.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,104
    JC29856 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Legal precedent is not on the side of immigrants. I'm not sure what trumps "in the interest of national security", spying on Americans hasnt, habeas corpus hasn't and drone killing American citizens hasn't, good luck with immigrant vetting.
    Then you should pass that along to all the attorneys working on their court filings in opposition.
    I didn't say it can't or shouldn't be challenged, I'm saying illegal spying and data collecting, allegations and trials for the accused and killing americans all have been litigated and defeated by the "national security".
    Like I said earlier let's wait and see how these lawsuits turn out.
    I think you said legal precedent isn't on the side of immigrants.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited January 2017

    JC29856 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Legal precedent is not on the side of immigrants. I'm not sure what trumps "in the interest of national security", spying on Americans hasnt, habeas corpus hasn't and drone killing American citizens hasn't, good luck with immigrant vetting.
    Then you should pass that along to all the attorneys working on their court filings in opposition.
    I didn't say it can't or shouldn't be challenged, I'm saying illegal spying and data collecting, allegations and trials for the accused and killing americans all have been litigated and defeated by the "national security".
    Like I said earlier let's wait and see how these lawsuits turn out.
    I think you said legal precedent isn't on the side of immigrants.
    I did...I read a bunch today. If I can find it I'll post. At quick glance I couldn't dig it up.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,485

    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    unsung said:

    Kat said:

    Yes, it looks like it'll be up to the Judicial Branch to be the firewall to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, etc. Next we'll be hearing about how all the judges and lawyers are sleazy, bought off, etc. The administration will attempt to undermine those tell them they're doing it all wrong.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Remember that C word the next time you talk about my gun rights.
    The Constitution has always been a work in progress...the experiment that is America...that is slipping way.
    I mourn 93 additional dead Americans today.
    There is a reasonable place between someone's right to have guns and people's right to be safe and not be victimized. One doesn't trump the other and the founding fathers never imagined what's going on today.
    https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

    Exactly. Your feelings don't trump my rights.

    I am guessing the founding fathers never anticipated more than two genders either.
    They didn't anticipate every change, but allowed for change at the same time. They probably figured we'd always have a need for a militia, and that women wouldn't ever be voting.
    They did a pretty good job with some misgivings that have been adjusted through the amendment process.
Sign In or Register to comment.