Originally Posted by dirtbanker

Rockface found something he has decided we must read!
All bold and red font...

Can you imagine the effort these guys go through? All that typing, font color, up all night. For what? Do they think they will convince one Trump supporter to change their views.

They are wackadoodles.

Originally Posted by Guest

Can you imagine the effort these guys go through? All that typing, font color, up all night. For what? Do they think they will convince one Trump supporter to change their views.

They are wackadoodles.

Wanting to be informed is an act of whacky if you support Trump. No need to do that, because he will lie to you, and you will simply bow and repeat what he tells you.

So, since you find being informed and being able to discuss facts to be a "wackadoodle" act, WHY do you come here ? What do you, or better yet...what CAN you discuss ?

You are very close now to admitting your Troll behavior.

You come on a local forum designed to discuss politics, and you make fun of those who come on here to discuss politics.

And you think everyone else is nuts ?

If I could drive you no life, low life types off here, I would be happy to visit my adult discussion groups, or simply have the discussions with groups designed for that

But, they are for adults so that leaves you out, but based on your posts and seemingly endless lack of knowledge, you have heard that before.

What a waste to have your life revolve around irritating adults trying to share real information. You act like a child, talk like a child, and have the knowledge of a child.

OR, you might follow the lead of the OP...visit extremist sites, steal their words and post as if you knew something, but alas not good for you..that would require a tad bit of reading

Originally Posted by Rockyrd

Wanting to be informed is an act of whacky if you support Trump. No need to do that, because he will lie to you, and you will simply bow and repeat what he tells you.

So, since you find being informed and being able to discuss facts to be a "wackadoodle" act, WHY do you come here ? What do you, or better yet...what CAN you discuss ?

You are very close now to admitting your Troll behavior.

You come on a local forum designed to discuss politics, and you make fun of those who come on here to discuss politics.

And you think everyone else is nuts ?

If I could drive you no life, low life types off here, I would be happy to visit my adult discussion groups, or simply have the discussions with groups designed for that

But, they are for adults so that leaves you out, but based on your posts and seemingly endless lack of knowledge, you have heard that before.

What a waste to have your life revolve around irritating adults trying to share real information. You act like a child, talk like a child, and have the knowledge of a child.

Blah blah, thought you were watching a game and reading a book.


Lol

Originally Posted by Guest

Blah blah, thought you were watching a game and reading a book.


Lol

I think I got it.

You CAN read newspapers, articles and news magazines.

See, you thought you had to have a book....think we are on to something. You only read books.....can only imagine the subject matter.

Originally Posted by Rockyrd

I think I got it.

You CAN read newspapers, articles and news magazines.

See, you thought you had to have a book....think we are on to something. You only read books.....can only imagine the subject matter.

Wackadoodle

I cited the source of the story on Sweden in post #4. Posters can choose to believe it or not. It makes no difference to me.

However, the reality is that immigration is no longer as benign as some people would have you believe.

This nation's immigration policy is based on family. Ex Uncle brings his nephew to the USA.

Many purport that immigration ought to be based on need. America needs more engineers. allow a number in.

The benefit for America is they are allowing self supporting people to gain entry and those who would quickly assimilate.

As the progressives continue their resistance to this issue and others we are all suffering fools .

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

I cited the source of the story on Sweden in post #4. Posters can choose to believe it or not. It makes no difference to me.

However, the reality is that immigration is no longer as benign as some people would have you believe.

This nation's immigration policy is based on family. Ex Uncle brings his nephew to the USA.

Many purport that immigration ought to be based on need. America needs more engineers. allow a number in.

The benefit for America is they are allowing self supporting people to gain entry and those who would quickly assimilate.

As the progressives continue their resistance to this issue and others we are all suffering fools .

Personal Best Regards:

Well, the actual content you did not check however.

We were told any ban was just to review our vetting, which is the best in the world, but haven't heard anything about that study.

Nor have I heard anything about ISIS in the Philippines.

When you lie over and over and over, how can you expect the judicial system to support you ?

Originally Posted by Guest

Well, the actual content you did not check however.

We were told any ban was just to review our vetting, which is the best in the world, but haven't heard anything about that study.

Nor have I heard anything about ISIS in the Philippines.

When you lie over and over and over, how can you expect the judicial system to support you ?

Is that why Hillary was never indicted? Because she lied over and over so they feared the judicial system would not support her or Obama?

Originally Posted by Guest

Is that why Hillary was never indicted? Because she lied over and over so they feared the judicial system would not support her or Obama?

Now this is a REAL STUPID STRETCH.

On a story about IMMIGRATION and our Judicial system, you actually found a way to stick Clintons name in......man, you are totally and completely deluded and unaware.

Election is over.....the court of appeals blocked this because they found our President could not be trusted.

If this goes to the Supreme Court and the highest court in the land up holds it....WOW......

Originally Posted by Guest

Now this is a REAL STUPID STRETCH.

On a story about IMMIGRATION and our Judicial system, you actually found a way to stick Clintons name in......man, you are totally and completely deluded and unaware.

Election is over.....the court of appeals blocked this because they found our President could not be trusted.

If this goes to the Supreme Court and the highest court in the land up holds it....WOW......

You brought up lying, so why are you so disingenuous by acting indignant about my bringing up the queen of lies herself? You are putting up suppositions that the reason they refused Trump is because he lies and they can't trust him. Are you suggesting that the court is not being honest? After all, why would they use his campaign rhetoric as a basis for this instead of just seeing if it conforms with the law? You are suggesting that the court is not being honest. I could probably agree with you on that idea.

Originally Posted by Guest

You brought up lying, so why are you so disingenuous by acting indignant about my bringing up the queen of lies herself? You are putting up suppositions that the reason they refused Trump is because he lies and they can't trust him. Are you suggesting that the court is not being honest? After all, why would they use his campaign rhetoric as a basis for this instead of just seeing if it conforms with the law? You are suggesting that the court is not being honest. I could probably agree with you on that idea.

"A substantial majority of the judges who sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond delivered a rather remarkable judgment last week: The president of the United States is not to be believed.

Will the Supreme Court conclude the same thing? And by “Supreme Court,” we mean “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,” whose name was invoked 23 times in the 205 pages of majority opinions, concurrences and dissents in the appeals court’s 10-to-3 rejection of President Trump’s revised travel ban."

Court says essentially that Trump is not to be believed. Will Supreme Court conclude the same? - The Washington Post

"But it’s worth another look at the remarkable rhetoric in Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory’s majority opinion, which concludes that Trump’s “true reason” for the travel ban was not protecting the nation’s security but making good on a campaign promise born of anti-Muslim bias.

As Harvard law professor Noah Feldman put it in an essay for Bloomberg News, “It’s extraordinary for a federal court to tell the president directly that he’s lying; I certainly can’t think of any other examples in my lifetime.”

Originally Posted by Guest

"A substantial majority of the judges who sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond delivered a rather remarkable judgment last week: The president of the United States is not to be believed.

Will the Supreme Court conclude the same thing? And by “Supreme Court,” we mean “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,” whose name was invoked 23 times in the 205 pages of majority opinions, concurrences and dissents in the appeals court’s 10-to-3 rejection of President Trump’s revised travel ban."

Court says essentially that Trump is not to be believed. Will Supreme Court conclude the same? - The Washington Post

"But it’s worth another look at the remarkable rhetoric in Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory’s majority opinion, which concludes that Trump’s “true reason” for the travel ban was not protecting the nation’s security but making good on a campaign promise born of anti-Muslim bias.

As Harvard law professor Noah Feldman put it in an essay for Bloomberg News, “It’s extraordinary for a federal court to tell the president directly that he’s lying; I certainly can’t think of any other examples in my lifetime.”

SO, once again I will ask this rhetorical question:

An E.O. is issued. A court decides that it is UN-Constitutional because the author has been known to lie? So, the court is deciding on the merit of who the author is, NOT the validity of the E.O. I believe that the court is overstepping it's authority, by judging the character of the author rather than the validity of the order. Basically, what the court is saying is that Trump has no authority as president of the U.S. of A. and therefore cannot be Commander-in-Chief or sign any future bills.
Sorry, but I do not know of anyone that would find that in the least bit credible. If the same E.O. was passed as a bill, the court would not have any means to judge that it is invalid if they can no longer base it on the author's character.

SO, basically what I am saying is that the character of the court makes them biased and they should recuse themselves from judgement. They cannot make a credible and unbiased judgement on the E.O.

Originally Posted by Guest

SO, once again I will ask this rhetorical question:

An E.O. is issued. A court decides that it is UN-Constitutional because the author has been known to lie? So, the court is deciding on the merit of who the author is, NOT the validity of the E.O. I believe that the court is overstepping it's authority, by judging the character of the author rather than the validity of the order. Basically, what the court is saying is that Trump has no authority as president of the U.S. of A. and therefore cannot be Commander-in-Chief or sign any future bills.
Sorry, but I do not know of anyone that would find that in the least bit credible. If the same E.O. was passed as a bill, the court would not have any means to judge that it is invalid if they can no longer base it on the author's character.

SO, basically what I am saying is that the character of the court makes them biased and they should recuse themselves from judgement. They cannot make a credible and unbiased judgement on the E.O.

In the USA, there is a system of checks and balances. The courts are the Judicial Branch. They are blocking an Executive Order from the head of the Executive Branch. It can be appealed further to the Supreme Court.

I understand what you are saying but that is what democracy is like.

Originally Posted by Guest

In the USA, there is a system of checks and balances. The courts are the Judicial Branch. They are blocking an Executive Order from the head of the Executive Branch. It can be appealed further to the Supreme Court.

I understand what you are saying but that is what democracy is like.

I don't' agree. That is when the court oversteps it's authority. When "democracy" is broken.

Originally Posted by Guest

I don't' agree. That is when the court oversteps it's authority. When "democracy" is broken.

Actually, the court is the ultimate authority. The court decides what is constitutional or not, what is legal or not, what is fair or not......That is why there are levels in the courts, so that legal opinions that are considered in error can be corrected, but the Supreme Court is the LAST WORD. Only a Constitutional Amendment can usurp the judgement of the Supreme Court.