Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judge Jeannine Pirro explains the law regarding this Ban, quotes the law, and makes clear that Trumps Order is Constitutional and Legal, according to Law. Listen carefully and be informed:
It is somewhat accurate to note that the goal of Fundy Islam is world domination.
And, even up to the 20th century, they have been doing so. When the Belgians were in the Congo they were fighting against Islamic forces who were "hunting" for slaves and converts.
But this has little or nothing to do with the subject at hand. We have Fundy Christians and Jews and Scientologists and others who believe in crazy stuff what - if taken at face value - would be a danger. For example, MANY Christians feel the world could end today or tomorrow.
If this is the truth than it doesn't matter to pollute, cause cancer, fight wars and do many other things.
You are misrepresenting what Christians believe. We do not believe that "it doesn't matter if we "pollute ...etc." as you said. We don't believe that at all. I don't know where you're getting this from Do you actually know Christians personally who believe this? I have never known any Christians who believe such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
But make no mistake about it. The history of Islam - like the history of many other movements and religions - is one of conquering others and converting them.
On with the conversation...the world domination part of Islam doesn't really mean much unless you want to start excluding lots of other immigrants and/or jailing lots of Americans for their crazy/nutty beliefs. But people should understand that is/was the basic of Islam. It is/was a religion born in a harsh environment where it was often kill or be killed. As with other war mongers (privateers, etc.) Islamic soldiers were always promised the rewards of booty, slaves and women (rape). This continues to this day where you can find relatively mainstream Muslim scholars who will state that multiple wives, raping of conquered parties, etc. are all Islam-approve.
Fundy Religions or even doctrines (like Trumps) are a danger in a world which requires logic, reason and compassion.
"Doctrines (like Trumps)?" What is President Trump's "doctrine"? The "Travel Ban" isn't "Trumps Doctrine" it is grounded in U.S. Law. It is legal, and it is Constitutional. It will be overturned.
The Washington Post is probably the second most respected U.S. media publication. They have an avalanche of Pulitzer Prizes and global respect. Only the NY Times has more worldwide gravitas.
If you don't trust the Washington Post, then you're flat-out, utterly, brainwashed by fakenews. There is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, because you're so far down the rabbit hole of alt-reality and wouldn't believe something if you saw it with your own two eyes. You would follow Trump to nuclear annihilation, and still be spouting off "But what about Hillary sending an email" and "but what about those *******s in California". Truly Deplorable.
"The Washington Post is probably the second most respected U.S. media publication. They have an avalanche of Pulitzer Prizes and global respect. Only the NY Times has more worldwide gravitas."
We are NOT talking about how they were YEARS ago. We are talking about TODAY.
I would change your sentence with:
The Washington Post USED TO BE the second most respected U.S. media publication. They have an avalanche of Pulitzer Prizes and global respect. Only the NY Times USED TO HAVE worldwide gravitas.
I am from DC and know a LOT obout the Wash post.
I USED TO BE a reputable paper UNTIL Bradley took over.
It has gone down hill ever since.
The NY Times USED be called the "Grey lady". Now she is just called an OLD HAG.
BOTH have moved VERYfar left.
The NYT even more so then the Post
Amended version or your rant.
If you trust the Washington Post, then you're flat-out, utterly, brainwashed by fakenews. There is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, because you're so far down the rabbit hole of alt-reality and wouldn't believe something if you saw it with your own two eyes. You would follow Hilary to nuclear annihilation, and still be spouting off "But what about Trump grabbing women sending.
If you think ANYBODY believes you are un-biased, I have abridge to sell you.
That has nothing to do with anything. The WSJ is owned by a staunch right-wing conservative, and they have been equally as anti-Trump. The NY Times is owned by a middle-of-road family, and they have been equally as anti-Trump. Any news source with a shred of integrity is anti-Trump, because Trump is singularly and uniquely awful.
And Jeff Bezos is NOT a "staunch liberal". You got that from one of those crazy alt-right sites. He is very much a capitalist supply-side supporter. Amazon is run like a harsh boot camp.
Face it: Trump is horrible. This has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative. The Washington Post is one of the most rock-solid English-language information sources on the planet, and if you ignore news from the Post, you're just ignoring reality.
Liberal believe the things they read and see from the media are NOT left biased BECAUSE THEY SAY WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.
"The NY Times is owned by a middle-of-road family, and they have been equally as anti-Trump. Any news source with a shred of integrity is anti-Trump, because Trump is singularly and uniquely awful."
YOU SUBSTANTIATED MY CLAIM.
Being you believe EVERY WORD the Time says, are you going to refute its OWN public editor?
New York Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has Liberal Bias
Keep in mind this is from August 18, 2013, and it has gone further let since then!
"Margaret Sullivan on CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday marvelously telling us what we already know (video follows with transcript and commentary)"
"
LIPMAN: So let's dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about "The New York Times" -- I don't know if it's the most frequent but it's certainly the loudest -- is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?
SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column -- and I think the headline said something like "Is 'The Times' a Liberal Newspaper?" And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.
I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think. LIPMAN: So it is a yes? SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.
Ah, we'll ignore the nuance and just take that as a yes, Margaret. Thanks for confirming it."
What exactly did Trump find, was there a specific terrorist activity that spurred this radical action?
The president has broad powers to address immediate threats, maybe Trump knows something that suddenly happened that even his closest advisors such as Kelly and Mattis were unaware.
"]What exactly did Trump find, was there a specific terrorist activity that spurred this radical action?"
You should be asking Obama this question.
HE IS HE ONE who put the countries on the the "Terror Watch List.
well..except that Obama never had a "ban". He signed the appropriation bill which had inserted in it HR158 sponsored by a tea party republican which revoked the visa waiver program for four countries, it was a 'must pass bill' which means that in order to sign the appropriation bill that bill couldn't be stripped from it. But in any case, Citizens of those Countries could still travel to the US but they needed to get a visa to do so.
And the 1965 update to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, clarifies that people should not experience preferences or discrimination on account of their "race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence."
Trump's EO grants religious preference to Christians and targets seven majority-Muslim countries
Thanks for posting this and other easy-to-find information.
This is what happens when you rush and put out something illegal and unconstitutional. Victory! Long live our courts in the fight against tyranny.
Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Trump's 90 day ban. Or, can you cite the law and or where in the Constitution Trump is prohibited from issuing the 90 day ban?
I'll wait...
This restraint will be overturned before you can cite anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
