Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-07-2017, 03:12 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,576,036 times
Reputation: 8094

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
That's baldly untrue.
Here we go again. Can't even agree on the basic facts.

Who invented "hate speech"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2017, 03:17 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,894,256 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Here we go again. Can't even agree on the basic facts.

Who invented "hate speech"?
Here's a fact for you. Liberals/progressives hate the misogyny that infuses Islam, and yet defend Muslims' right to freedom of religion. Liberals/progressives dominate the ACLU, and yet the ACLU defends the Ku Klux Klan's right to exercise their freedom of speech. The ACLU defends Fred Phelps' church's right to exercise their freedom of speech. So your "basic facts" fly right out the window.

Bottom line, the liberals/progressives defend the Bill of Rights passionately, because they believe that freedom is more important than security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 03:22 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,576,036 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Here's a fact for you. Liberals/progressives hate the misogyny that infuses Islam, and yet defend Muslims' right to freedom of religion. Liberals/progressives dominate the ACLU, and yet the ACLU defends the Ku Klux Klan's right to exercise their freedom of speech. The ACLU defends Fred Phelps' church's right to exercise their freedom of speech. So your "basic facts" fly right out the window.

Bottom line, the liberals/progressives defend the Bill of Rights passionately, because they believe that freedom is more important than security.
Save this for comical effect.

Who forced bakers to bake gay wedding cakes?
Who forced people to take down confederate flags?
Who rioted over Milo's speech at UCB, denying his freedom of speech through violence?
Who invented "hate speech"?
Who championed gun controls to criminalize law abiding citizens?

Last edited by lifeexplorer; 02-07-2017 at 03:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 03:36 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,654,236 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Save this for comical effect.

Who forced bakers to bake gay wedding cakes?
Who forced people to take down confederate flags?
Who rioted over Milo's speech at UCB?
Who invented "hate speech"?
Who championed gun controls to criminalize law abiding citizens?

The key word for the Democrats and Government in General:

FORCE.

They don't promote the General Welfare. They FORCE their enlightened intellectual version of it. No matter how far out there it is to people outside their echo-chambered box.


As long as:
You don't threaten me, or my family.
You don't harm me, my family, my friends, or those incapable of defending themselves.
You don't murder, my family, my friends, or those incapable of defending themselves.
You don't steal and take what is not yours, from me, my family, my friends, or those incapable of defending themselves

We are good.
Other than that, lets have a discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 04:05 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,894,256 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Save this for comical effect.

Who forced bakers to bake gay wedding cakes?
Who forced people to take down confederate flags?
Who rioted over Milo's speech at UCB, denying his freedom of speech through violence?
Who invented "hate speech"?
Who championed gun controls to criminalize law abiding citizens?
I think the people who invented "hate speech" were the people who attack a person or group based on attributes that person or group have no control over. Like the Ku Klux Klan speaking disparagingly about non-white people.

As for your questions,

1. Nobody. The baker opened a business and obtained a license which required him to follow the laws of the state in which he operated that business. If he can't keep himself from discriminating, that's his problem.

2. No people have been forced to take down Confederate flags. I see them daily.

3. His freedom of speech wasn't denied. As far as I know, Milo can still say anything he wants.

4. Answered.

5. People who thought that responsible gun ownership was more important than everyone having a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 04:15 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,576,036 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I think the people who invented "hate speech" were the people who attack a person or group based on attributes that person or group have no control over. Like the Ku Klux Klan speaking disparagingly about non-white people.

As for your questions,

1. Nobody. The baker opened a business and obtained a license which required him to follow the laws of the state in which he operated that business. If he can't keep himself from discriminating, that's his problem.

2. No people have been forced to take down Confederate flags. I see them daily.

3. His freedom of speech wasn't denied. As far as I know, Milo can still say anything he wants.

4. Answered.

5. People who thought that responsible gun ownership was more important than everyone having a gun.
Alternative facts and alternative universe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,311 posts, read 26,236,916 times
Reputation: 15650
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Alternative facts and alternative universe.
I think DC presented a rather good argument to your questions most of which had nothing to do with the constitution, it appears you have no reply other than the usual
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 09:39 PM
 
8,154 posts, read 3,682,802 times
Reputation: 2724
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Not true. Green Card holders are warned that they might not be able to re-enter the US if they choose to travel abroad. They're still aliens who travel on their foreign passport. They can be turned away at Immigration pursuant to Rosenberg v. Fleuti, as noted in Plasencia v. Sureck:

"The Court listed several factors which are relevant to whether a given departure is a meaningful interruption, including the length of the absence, the purpose of the trip, and whether the alien had to obtain special travel documents. The Court also said that "if the purpose of leaving the country is to accomplish some object which is itself contrary to some policy reflected in our immigration laws, it would appear that the interruption of residence thereby occurring would properly be regarded as meaningful."

And as has already been noted, under Immigration Law, POTUS does have the authority to deny entry to aliens. Green Card holders are aliens. They are not US citizens.

8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.



Exactly.
It is beyond me, why you quote stuff that does not help your argument at all, but whatever. As I said, NOBODY is arguing that legal permanent residents are guaranteed re-entry. By the current immigration law, they might become inadmissible, or removable if inside the country, IF they violated some conditions (listed in the law), committed crimes whatever. "IF", get it? Which is not a blanket ban.

And, as I said from the beginning, it can't stand in court and it didn't.

Questions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 11:39 PM
 
9,617 posts, read 6,067,889 times
Reputation: 3884
You really need to think through your answer in number 3. Milo Y went to UCal to speak. Through violence and rioting and intimidation in general, Milo was unable to speak. His civil right of free speech was interfered with, not to mention that those who organized the violent protests were involved in a conspiracy to prevent his free speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I think the people who invented "hate speech" were the people who attack a person or group based on attributes that person or group have no control over. Like the Ku Klux Klan speaking disparagingly about non-white people.

As for your questions,

1. Nobody. The baker opened a business and obtained a license which required him to follow the laws of the state in which he operated that business. If he can't keep himself from discriminating, that's his problem.

2. No people have been forced to take down Confederate flags. I see them daily.

3. His freedom of speech wasn't denied. As far as I know, Milo can still say anything he wants.

4. Answered.

5. People who thought that responsible gun ownership was more important than everyone having a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2017, 12:14 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,059 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
It is beyond me, why you quote stuff that does not help your argument at all, but whatever.
Actually, it makes my case. Contradicting Immigration Law, and that includes POTUS authority in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), is a legal cause of 'meaningful interruption,' which can result in Green Card holders being denied re-entry to the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top