Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is Going to Happen to the Children?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Sorry, there was no "Muslim ban".

    An EO that bans muslims would be unconstitutional on its face. Given that the SCOTUS upheld Trump's "travel Ban", I suspect they determined it was not a "muslim ban". Facts remain stubborn things.
    Yes, there was:
    '"What's different is kind of the naked unapologetic cruelty. That's the first thing. The second thing is, you know, the sheer managerial incompetence of this administration. The rollout of the Muslim ban, that executive order, was disastrous," Chuck Park said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."'

    It was unconstitutional which is why it was modified in order to pass. So, perhaps you should actually do some research instead of posting BS and than accusing others of not being correct. Facts are stubborn things. Why are you always defending a morally corrupt president and his incompetent administration?

    And what was the reason for Trump's Moslem ban? Religious bigotry.

    Last edited by Massena; 10 Aug 19, 03:06.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Massena View Post

      Yes, there was:
      '"What's different is kind of the naked unapologetic cruelty. That's the first thing. The second thing is, you know, the sheer managerial incompetence of this administration. The rollout of the Muslim ban, that executive order, was disastrous," Chuck Park said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."'

      It was unconstitutional which is why it was modified in order to pass. So, perhaps you should actually do some research instead of posting BS and than accusing others of not being correct. Facts are stubborn things. Why are you always defending a morally corrupt president and his incompetent administration?

      And what was the reason for Trump's Moslem ban? Religious bigotry.


      Much like O’Bama care which would have been unconstitutional if Roberts hadn’t let them get away with changing the “"Penalty"” into a tax when arguing in court about it.
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Massena View Post

        Yes, there was:
        '"What's different is kind of the naked unapologetic cruelty. That's the first thing. The second thing is, you know, the sheer managerial incompetence of this administration. The rollout of the Muslim ban, that executive order, was disastrous," Chuck Park said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."'

        It was unconstitutional which is why it was modified in order to pass. So, perhaps you should actually do some research instead of posting BS and than accusing others of not being correct. Facts are stubborn things. Why are you always defending a morally corrupt president and his incompetent administration?

        And what was the reason for Trump's Moslem ban? Religious bigotry.
        The original travel ban never made it to the SCOTUS. As a result, there was no resolution on those decisions.
        The lower court decisions on the initial travel bans were nakedly political and not based on the law.
        They were embarrassing exercises in judicial activism.
        I’ve read the decisions. Have you?

        The travel ban you were including in your “Muslim ban” was upheld by the SCOTUS. In other words. Constitutional.

        Please don’t provide opinions of political hacks as proof of facts. They aren’t the same things.
        The fact that Cooper called it a Muslim ban (like his dem talking points told him to) is proof enough that he is just a political hack.
        An honest ”newsman” would have called it what it was (travel ban) and let us make our own decisions. Instead, he tells us the correct conclusion.
        I had no opinion of cooper before, but now I do.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #79
          I'd add that to date about 95% of court rulings against the Trump administration have come from Obama appointed judges and about 95% of those rulings have been overturned on appeal. That's a really pathetic rate of success for Progressives and shows just how political Obama's judicial appointments were.

          Comment


          • #80
            Could you please explain what an 'Obama judge' is? Perhaps you should pay attention to what Chief Justice Roberts said about all US judges, regardless of who appointed them.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Massena View Post
              Could you please explain what an 'Obama judge' is? Perhaps you should pay attention to what Chief Justice Roberts said about all US judges, regardless of who appointed them.
              Obama appointed a good number of US judges. Maybe you should pay attention to which ones are ruling against Trump. In fact, I'm quite surprised when the judge isn't a Obama appointee. Occasionally it's a Clinton appointee. But, there are just a few cases were a Bush or other President appointed the judge.

              And, if you track it even casually like I have, about 95% of the time the Obama appointees are overturned on appeal. Actions speak louder than words so what Justice Roberts has to say on this is irrelevant compared to the track record to date of actual cases.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                Once again a question that you refuse to answer:
                Check the title of this thread. I have answered the question numerous times. You appear to not like the answer so you being other subjects into the thread that have already been answered in past threads. My answers to those threads can be found in those threads.

                Regarding this thread; do you think the adults that have broken the law should not be held responsible for their actions?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                  Check the title of this thread. I have answered the question numerous times. You appear to not like the answer so you being other subjects into the thread that have already been answered in past threads. My answers to those threads can be found in those threads.

                  Regarding this thread; do you think the adults that have broken the law should not be held responsible for their actions?
                  Check the title of the thread...do you believe that the owners and managers should not be held responsible as well? And what about the Trump organization employing illegal aliens, or do you believe they are sacrosanct and above the law? Get a grip-just a little common sense and perspective on your part would go a long way. I suppose that is just too much to ask...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                    AHEM.....

                    I believe I've explained this before in this fora....

                    Jesus's mission co-incided with the brutal Roman occupation, as first Tiberius, then Vespasian attempted to extract the accumulated gold reserves of Judea, mainly the Temple's, by inciting a revolt and crackdown.

                    (eventually, this worked...)
                    If you see Roman Law and rule in Judea , first Century AD, as enlightened, I suggest another look...
                    The cruelty of Rome is irrelevant. The Bible still says obey the law so trying to game the grace concept to excuse criminal behavior is a non starter. Paul made it abundantly clear in his "Shall we keep sinning that grace might increase, certainly not." bit that said attempts to use grace as an excuse for misbehavior don't pan. The moment you see grace as an entitlement and not a gift, you're out of bounds.

                    ​​​​
                    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post

                      Check the title of the thread...do you believe that the owners and managers should not be held responsible as well? And what about the Trump organization employing illegal aliens, or do you believe they are sacrosanct and above the law? Get a grip-just a little common sense and perspective on your part would go a long way. I suppose that is just too much to ask...
                      I think people who knowingly hire illegals should be held responsible for their actions. I also think they should face punishment if they made the illegals work in conditions not compliant with safety codes as many do.

                      Now answer the question. Do you think adults who have broken the law should be held responsible for their actions? Yes or no will do.
                      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                        Check the title of this thread. I have answered the question numerous times. You appear to not like the answer so you being other subjects into the thread that have already been answered in past threads. My answers to those threads can be found in those threads.

                        Regarding this thread; do you think the adults that have broken the law should not be held responsible for their actions?
                        Yes, they should, and only the short-sighted, the liberals and the politically ignorant think otherwise. If not, the result is anarchy.
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Here's the thing...over and over again staff remind posters on here to address the post and not the poster and we still get long time members who can't seem to grasp this concept.
                          So ONCE AGAIN address the post and not the other posters. Editing this thread to remove the most recent personal comments.
                          Thank you
                          ACG Staff

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post

                            I think people who knowingly hire illegals should be held responsible for their actions. I also think they should face punishment if they made the illegals work in conditions not compliant with safety codes as many do.

                            Now answer the question. Do you think adults who have broken the law should be held responsible for their actions? Yes or no will do.
                            I don't understand why they don't come down harder on the companies that hire them. It's common sense.

                            I would like to see companies who need workers to come up with a program to sign up the workers in Mexico, bus them into the US on Mondays to work and bus them back on Fridays to spend weekends with their families. Provide good working/living conditions and a decent wage. If these workers wish, they can start the process to legally stay in the US. This should be a fairly simple process if employers sponsor them.

                            "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

                            "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Persephone View Post

                              I don't understand why they don't come down harder on the companies that hire them. It's common sense.

                              I would like to see companies who need workers to come up with a program to sign up the workers in Mexico, bus them into the US on Mondays to work and bus them back on Fridays to spend weekends with their families. Provide good working/living conditions and a decent wage. If these workers wish, they can start the process to legally stay in the US. This should be a fairly simple process if employers sponsor them.
                              The problem is proving the company knew they were illegally here. If the illegal was using false ID or a stolen identity, the company has the necessary fig leaf to say they didn't know. Then it comes down to the cost of taking the company to trial and the possibility that the company will win.

                              Usually, ICE will only charge the company when they have rock solid proof they were in on illegals being hired, as in the Filiberto's and Chuy's restaurant cases in Arizona. They did that through tax records, pay accounts, and other business records of the companies. More clever companies make sure they pay minimum wage, pay the taxes, etc. Then you are left proving they knew the person was in the US illegally. That's much harder to do.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Its the end of days

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X