Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic:  RE: Another protest Topic:  RE: Another protest Author Message OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 1:08:24 PM  DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings. I would agree that the KKK-weed remark is worse. But, Sessions said it was a bad joke. That he didn't mean it seriously. Since I've told some very bad jokes in my life, I can accept that explanation. His actions against the KKK speak loader than his telling an awful joke in my book. I think you'll find out that as US AG he will be fair and impartial, and if some case involving the KKK were to surface he'd come down on them like a ton of bricks. I hope that's the case. But someone here already pointed out that his actions against the KKK have been overblown and overstated by the GOP. I'd also add that he has a long history of saying and doing things that could be construed as racist (and allegedly using the n-word freely). I do believe that he would likely rule against the KKK but I'm not convinced that he'll stand up for civil rights. The best I can hope for is that he doesn't actively undermine them. That's the way a lot of people viewed LBJ before he became president. They were wrong. Time will tell if you are wrong. Here's hoping you are! ;-) Let me add, what you call a "long history" of certain actions seems to actually boil down to the testimony of one person, who is then quoted and re-quoted by others and then previous testimony is dug up and rehashed as though new. Somewhere above I believe I posted a link to an article that at the beginning talks about this guy and his dislike for Sessions. If there was actually good proof that he had used the N-word freely, it would bother me greatly, but I think the evidence was not very convincing on this score. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top DelBobcat General User Member Since: 8/26/2010 Location: Cincinnati, OH Post Count: 1,135 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 1:27:46 PM  rpbobcat wrote: Monroe Slavin wrote: Really. Trump lost the pure vote. Twisting that is absurd. Also, please show me any reasonably mainstream source or article which said a week before the vote that the Dems would gain control of either house of Congress. My memory is that no one of repute was saying that. Nice job on the alternative facts, though. Maybe you're right about 2018. But that's a prediction, not a fact. If you need help with that, let me know. Here's a fact. Trump said this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot... / Sadly, he recognized there the stubborn, won't-reason quality of his followers. You happy, bro? 1.Please define "pure vote" ? President Trump won the only vote that counts in selecting a president in the United States. 2.So you're admitting that CNN,ABC,CBS and NBC aren't "mainstream" ? 3.As far as 2018,it is a fact that,at this time,the political landscape favors republicans. What will happen over the next 20 months or so,who knows. 4.Guess I'm one of what you call "stubborn,won't reason " followers of President Trump. I'm also,according to Mrs. Clinton a deplorable and uneducated. Am I happy President trump won ? Happier,especially when it comes to the Supreme Court,then if Mrs. Clinton had . Literally no one that I can think of said the Dems had any chance of taking the House. Some people in the media argued that the Dems had a CHANCE of taking the Senate (and others on those same networks argued that they had little to no chance). That didn't turn out to be false. The GOP held control of the Senate, but the Dems gained two seats and won a majority of the popular vote. That's pretty much in line with the average prediction coming from the media. I should also point out that HRC said that HALF of Trump's supporters were deplorable. She later clarified that half was going too far. But I don't think she was out of line (but maybe a little too honest). In a survey 52 percent of Trump supporters said black people were "less evolved" than whites. A large percentage of Trump supporters also described black people as "savage" and "barbaric." That sounds pretty deplorable to me. And as for uneducated comment? I don't recall HRC ever saying that, but again strictly speaking she wouldn't have been wrong. HRC wont the college educated vote by 9 percentage points, while Trump won the non-college educated vote by 8 percentage points. That is the largest gap between the two populations going all the way back to 1980. BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012 Back to Top DelBobcat General User Member Since: 8/26/2010 Location: Cincinnati, OH Post Count: 1,135 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 1:41:43 PM  OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings. I would agree that the KKK-weed remark is worse. But, Sessions said it was a bad joke. That he didn't mean it seriously. Since I've told some very bad jokes in my life, I can accept that explanation. His actions against the KKK speak loader than his telling an awful joke in my book. I think you'll find out that as US AG he will be fair and impartial, and if some case involving the KKK were to surface he'd come down on them like a ton of bricks. I hope that's the case. But someone here already pointed out that his actions against the KKK have been overblown and overstated by the GOP. I'd also add that he has a long history of saying and doing things that could be construed as racist (and allegedly using the n-word freely). I do believe that he would likely rule against the KKK but I'm not convinced that he'll stand up for civil rights. The best I can hope for is that he doesn't actively undermine them. That's the way a lot of people viewed LBJ before he became president. They were wrong. Time will tell if you are wrong. Here's hoping you are! ;-) Let me add, what you call a "long history" of certain actions seems to actually boil down to the testimony of one person, who is then quoted and re-quoted by others and then previous testimony is dug up and rehashed as though new. Somewhere above I believe I posted a link to an article that at the beginning talks about this guy and his dislike for Sessions. If there was actually good proof that he had used the N-word freely, it would bother me greatly, but I think the evidence was not very convincing on this score. I don't buy the "testimony of one person" argument. The KKK remark was made to an assistant U.S. Attorney named Thomas Figures. The claim that he called the NAACP "un-American" was made by a man named J. Gerald Herbert and also backed up by Figures and he admitted that he believed that the NAACP could be "construed" as un-American. Herbert also claimed that Sessions called someone a "disgrace to his race" for working on a civil rights case, and Sessions is on record as saying the Voting Rights Act is intrusive. His use of the n-word comes from the allegations of a former Mobile County Commissioner named Dan Wiley. So we have at least three sources, with nothing to gain, and Session's own words to incriminate him. But again, I hope I am wrong. BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012 Back to Top rpbobcat General User Member Since: 4/28/2006 Location: Rochelle Park, NJ Post Count: 3,504 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 1:49:52 PM  DelBobcat wrote: rpbobcat wrote: Monroe Slavin wrote: Really. Trump lost the pure vote. Twisting that is absurd. Also, please show me any reasonably mainstream source or article which said a week before the vote that the Dems would gain control of either house of Congress. My memory is that no one of repute was saying that. Nice job on the alternative facts, though. Maybe you're right about 2018. But that's a prediction, not a fact. If you need help with that, let me know. Here's a fact. Trump said this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot... / Sadly, he recognized there the stubborn, won't-reason quality of his followers. You happy, bro? 1.Please define "pure vote" ? President Trump won the only vote that counts in selecting a president in the United States. 2.So you're admitting that CNN,ABC,CBS and NBC aren't "mainstream" ? 3.As far as 2018,it is a fact that,at this time,the political landscape favors republicans. What will happen over the next 20 months or so,who knows. 4.Guess I'm one of what you call "stubborn,won't reason " followers of President Trump. I'm also,according to Mrs. Clinton a deplorable and uneducated. Am I happy President trump won ? Happier,especially when it comes to the Supreme Court,then if Mrs. Clinton had . Literally no one that I can think of said the Dems had any chance of taking the House. Some people in the media argued that the Dems had a CHANCE of taking the Senate (and others on those same networks argued that they had little to no chance). That didn't turn out to be false. The GOP held control of the Senate, but the Dems gained two seats and won a majority of the popular vote. That's pretty much in line with the average prediction coming from the media. I should also point out that HRC said that HALF of Trump's supporters were deplorable. She later clarified that half was going too far. But I don't think she was out of line (but maybe a little too honest). In a survey 52 percent of Trump supporters said black people were "less evolved" than whites. A large percentage of Trump supporters also described black people as "savage" and "barbaric." That sounds pretty deplorable to me. And as for uneducated comment? I don't recall HRC ever saying that, but again strictly speaking she wouldn't have been wrong. HRC wont the college educated vote by 9 percentage points, while Trump won the non-college educated vote by 8 percentage points. That is the largest gap between the two populations going all the way back to 1980. When the tape of President Trump vulgar comments came out,all you heard about was the "down ticket" impact. The week before the election CNN had a panel on,hosted by Wolf Blitzer talking about the election. (I remember the timeline because I was getting ready to work out) They were saying that Mrs Clinton was in line to win,with an Electoral College landslide. That the landslide could be "historic". They also said the 'down ticket" effect of the that would cost the republicans the senate and could cost them the House. Back to Top Deciduous Forest Cat General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Ohio Post Count: 4,306 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 1:55:17 PM  rpbobcat wrote: DelBobcat wrote: rpbobcat wrote: Monroe Slavin wrote: Really. Trump lost the pure vote. Twisting that is absurd. Also, please show me any reasonably mainstream source or article which said a week before the vote that the Dems would gain control of either house of Congress. My memory is that no one of repute was saying that. Nice job on the alternative facts, though. Maybe you're right about 2018. But that's a prediction, not a fact. If you need help with that, let me know. Here's a fact. Trump said this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot... / Sadly, he recognized there the stubborn, won't-reason quality of his followers. You happy, bro? 1.Please define "pure vote" ? President Trump won the only vote that counts in selecting a president in the United States. 2.So you're admitting that CNN,ABC,CBS and NBC aren't "mainstream" ? 3.As far as 2018,it is a fact that,at this time,the political landscape favors republicans. What will happen over the next 20 months or so,who knows. 4.Guess I'm one of what you call "stubborn,won't reason " followers of President Trump. I'm also,according to Mrs. Clinton a deplorable and uneducated. Am I happy President trump won ? Happier,especially when it comes to the Supreme Court,then if Mrs. Clinton had . Literally no one that I can think of said the Dems had any chance of taking the House. Some people in the media argued that the Dems had a CHANCE of taking the Senate (and others on those same networks argued that they had little to no chance). That didn't turn out to be false. The GOP held control of the Senate, but the Dems gained two seats and won a majority of the popular vote. That's pretty much in line with the average prediction coming from the media. I should also point out that HRC said that HALF of Trump's supporters were deplorable. She later clarified that half was going too far. But I don't think she was out of line (but maybe a little too honest). In a survey 52 percent of Trump supporters said black people were "less evolved" than whites. A large percentage of Trump supporters also described black people as "savage" and "barbaric." That sounds pretty deplorable to me. And as for uneducated comment? I don't recall HRC ever saying that, but again strictly speaking she wouldn't have been wrong. HRC wont the college educated vote by 9 percentage points, while Trump won the non-college educated vote by 8 percentage points. That is the largest gap between the two populations going all the way back to 1980. When the tape of President Trump vulgar comments came out,all you heard about was the "down ticket" impact. The week before the election CNN had a panel on,hosted by Wolf Blitzer talking about the election. (I remember the timeline because I was getting ready to work out) They were saying that Mrs Clinton was in line to win,with an Electoral College landslide. That the landslide could be "historic". They also said the 'down ticket" effect of the that would cost the republicans the senate and could cost them the House. This seemed fairly likely until the FBI's b.s. stunt tilted the election. Back to Top C Money General User Member Since: 8/28/2010 Post Count: 3,420 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 2:00:58 PM  DelBobcat wrote: Literally no one that I can think of said the Dems had any chance of taking the House. Some people in the media argued that the Dems had a CHANCE of taking the Senate (and others on those same networks argued that they had little to no chance). That didn't turn out to be false. The GOP held control of the Senate, but the Dems gained two seats and won a majority of the popular vote. That's pretty much in line with the average prediction coming from the media. I should also point out that HRC said that HALF of Trump's supporters were deplorable. She later clarified that half was going too far. But I don't think she was out of line (but maybe a little too honest). In a survey 52 percent of Trump supporters said black people were "less evolved" than whites. A large percentage of Trump supporters also described black people as "savage" and "barbaric." That sounds pretty deplorable to me. And as for uneducated comment? I don't recall HRC ever saying that, but again strictly speaking she wouldn't have been wrong. HRC wont the college educated vote by 9 percentage points, while Trump won the non-college educated vote by 8 percentage points. That is the largest gap between the two populations going all the way back to 1980. Pretty sure there's a law out there that says if you mention "Senate" and "barbaric" in an online message board post, you are required to link to the greatest moment ever captured on C-SPAN 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V95eGgZbrU Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,286 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 2:09:02 PM  DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings. I would agree that the KKK-weed remark is worse. But, Sessions said it was a bad joke. That he didn't mean it seriously. Since I've told some very bad jokes in my life, I can accept that explanation. His actions against the KKK speak loader than his telling an awful joke in my book. I think you'll find out that as US AG he will be fair and impartial, and if some case involving the KKK were to surface he'd come down on them like a ton of bricks. I hope that's the case. But someone here already pointed out that his actions against the KKK have been overblown and overstated by the GOP. I'd also add that he has a long history of saying and doing things that could be construed as racist (and allegedly using the n-word freely). I do believe that he would likely rule against the KKK but I'm not convinced that he'll stand up for civil rights. The best I can hope for is that he doesn't actively undermine them. That's the way a lot of people viewed LBJ before he became president. They were wrong. Time will tell if you are wrong. Here's hoping you are! ;-) Let me add, what you call a "long history" of certain actions seems to actually boil down to the testimony of one person, who is then quoted and re-quoted by others and then previous testimony is dug up and rehashed as though new. Somewhere above I believe I posted a link to an article that at the beginning talks about this guy and his dislike for Sessions. If there was actually good proof that he had used the N-word freely, it would bother me greatly, but I think the evidence was not very convincing on this score. I don't buy the "testimony of one person" argument. The KKK remark was made to an assistant U.S. Attorney named Thomas Figures. The claim that he called the NAACP "un-American" was made by a man named J. Gerald Herbert and also backed up by Figures and he admitted that he believed that the NAACP could be "construed" as un-American. Herbert also claimed that Sessions called someone a "disgrace to his race" for working on a civil rights case, and Sessions is on record as saying the Voting Rights Act is intrusive. His use of the n-word comes from the allegations of a former Mobile County Commissioner named Dan Wiley. So we have at least three sources, with nothing to gain, and Session's own words to incriminate him. But again, I hope I am wrong. Coincidentally, a poll came out today that 51% of Trump supporters believe he should be able to overturn the courts' decision regarding the Muslim Ban Immigration Order. Question for representatives of the rightwing PC police: are we allowed to call people who no longer believe in the separation of powers and checks and balances -- two core principles of our Democracy -- "deplorable"? I want to make sure I find the right balance between protecting our democracy from people intent on giving the President absolute power and making sure the snowflakes on the right don't have their feelings hurt. Last Edited: 2/10/2017 2:32:56 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame Back to Top rpbobcat General User Member Since: 4/28/2006 Location: Rochelle Park, NJ Post Count: 3,504 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 2:40:45 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings. I would agree that the KKK-weed remark is worse. But, Sessions said it was a bad joke. That he didn't mean it seriously. Since I've told some very bad jokes in my life, I can accept that explanation. His actions against the KKK speak loader than his telling an awful joke in my book. I think you'll find out that as US AG he will be fair and impartial, and if some case involving the KKK were to surface he'd come down on them like a ton of bricks. I hope that's the case. But someone here already pointed out that his actions against the KKK have been overblown and overstated by the GOP. I'd also add that he has a long history of saying and doing things that could be construed as racist (and allegedly using the n-word freely). I do believe that he would likely rule against the KKK but I'm not convinced that he'll stand up for civil rights. The best I can hope for is that he doesn't actively undermine them. That's the way a lot of people viewed LBJ before he became president. They were wrong. Time will tell if you are wrong. Here's hoping you are! ;-) Let me add, what you call a "long history" of certain actions seems to actually boil down to the testimony of one person, who is then quoted and re-quoted by others and then previous testimony is dug up and rehashed as though new. Somewhere above I believe I posted a link to an article that at the beginning talks about this guy and his dislike for Sessions. If there was actually good proof that he had used the N-word freely, it would bother me greatly, but I think the evidence was not very convincing on this score. I don't buy the "testimony of one person" argument. The KKK remark was made to an assistant U.S. Attorney named Thomas Figures. The claim that he called the NAACP "un-American" was made by a man named J. Gerald Herbert and also backed up by Figures and he admitted that he believed that the NAACP could be "construed" as un-American. Herbert also claimed that Sessions called someone a "disgrace to his race" for working on a civil rights case, and Sessions is on record as saying the Voting Rights Act is intrusive. His use of the n-word comes from the allegations of a former Mobile County Commissioner named Dan Wiley. So we have at least three sources, with nothing to gain, and Session's own words to incriminate him. But again, I hope I am wrong. Coincidentally, a poll came out today that 51% of Trump supporters believe he should be able to overturn the courts' decision regarding the Muslim Ban Immigration Order. Question for representatives of the rightwing PC police: are we allowed to call people who no longer believe in the separation of powers and checks and balances -- two core principles of our Democracy -- "deplorable"? I want to make sure I find the right balance between protecting our democracy and making sure the snowflakes on the right don't have their feelings hurt. As I recall,when a Texas judge ruled that Obama's Executive Order on refugees was not Constitutional,there were similar comments from the left. Also amazing how that never got anywhere near the press coverage this is. I believe in the Constitution. I do not believe in judicial activism on either side. This issue will play out in the courts. Then we'll see if the Executive Order for the temporary immigration ban,from certain countries, was within the President's Constitutional powers or not. What I do find interesting is that one of the most liberal lawyers in this country (Allen Dershowitz),who also happens to be a Constituional expert, feels the president's Executive Order is 100% Constitutional. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,286 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 3:16:33 PM  rpbobcat wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings. I would agree that the KKK-weed remark is worse. But, Sessions said it was a bad joke. That he didn't mean it seriously. Since I've told some very bad jokes in my life, I can accept that explanation. His actions against the KKK speak loader than his telling an awful joke in my book. I think you'll find out that as US AG he will be fair and impartial, and if some case involving the KKK were to surface he'd come down on them like a ton of bricks. I hope that's the case. But someone here already pointed out that his actions against the KKK have been overblown and overstated by the GOP. I'd also add that he has a long history of saying and doing things that could be construed as racist (and allegedly using the n-word freely). I do believe that he would likely rule against the KKK but I'm not convinced that he'll stand up for civil rights. The best I can hope for is that he doesn't actively undermine them. That's the way a lot of people viewed LBJ before he became president. They were wrong. Time will tell if you are wrong. Here's hoping you are! ;-) Let me add, what you call a "long history" of certain actions seems to actually boil down to the testimony of one person, who is then quoted and re-quoted by others and then previous testimony is dug up and rehashed as though new. Somewhere above I believe I posted a link to an article that at the beginning talks about this guy and his dislike for Sessions. If there was actually good proof that he had used the N-word freely, it would bother me greatly, but I think the evidence was not very convincing on this score. I don't buy the "testimony of one person" argument. The KKK remark was made to an assistant U.S. Attorney named Thomas Figures. The claim that he called the NAACP "un-American" was made by a man named J. Gerald Herbert and also backed up by Figures and he admitted that he believed that the NAACP could be "construed" as un-American. Herbert also claimed that Sessions called someone a "disgrace to his race" for working on a civil rights case, and Sessions is on record as saying the Voting Rights Act is intrusive. His use of the n-word comes from the allegations of a former Mobile County Commissioner named Dan Wiley. So we have at least three sources, with nothing to gain, and Session's own words to incriminate him. But again, I hope I am wrong. Coincidentally, a poll came out today that 51% of Trump supporters believe he should be able to overturn the courts' decision regarding the Muslim Ban Immigration Order. Question for representatives of the rightwing PC police: are we allowed to call people who no longer believe in the separation of powers and checks and balances -- two core principles of our Democracy -- "deplorable"? I want to make sure I find the right balance between protecting our democracy and making sure the snowflakes on the right don't have their feelings hurt. As I recall,when a Texas judge ruled that Obama's Executive Order on refugees was not Constitutional,there were similar comments from the left. Also amazing how that never got anywhere near the press coverage this is. I believe in the Constitution. I do not believe in judicial activism on either side. This issue will play out in the courts. Then we'll see if the Executive Order for the temporary immigration ban,from certain countries, was within the President's Constitutional powers or not. What I do find interesting is that one of the most liberal lawyers in this country (Allen Dershowitz),who also happens to be a Constituional expert, feels the president's Executive Order is 100% Constitutional. So you think this Bush appointee is a "judicial activist?" What part of the decision do you disagree with? Do you think Trump's rhetoric about banning muslims shouldn't be admissible? Because here's the problem as I see it: Trump called it a Muslim ban many, many times AND the executive order gives priority immigration status to Christians trying to leave those countries. It is unconstitutional to determine immigration status by religion. So I certainly don't support judicial activism. But that doesn't seem at all like what this is to me. As for your assertion that liberals didn't mind executive overreach when it was Obama, the ACLU sued the Obama admin like a dozen times. That said, I don't know which EO you're referring to specifically, so I can't really comment on the specific case. Back to Top rpbobcat General User Member Since: 4/28/2006 Location: Rochelle Park, NJ Post Count: 3,504 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 3:53:52 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: So you think this Bush appointee is a "judicial activist?" What part of the decision do you disagree with? Do you think Trump's rhetoric about banning muslims shouldn't be admissible? Because here's the problem as I see it: Trump called it a Muslim ban many, many times AND the executive order gives priority immigration status to Christians trying to leave those countries. It is unconstitutional to determine immigration status by religion. So I certainly don't support judicial activism. But that doesn't seem at all like what this is to me. As for your assertion that liberals didn't mind executive overreach when it was Obama, the ACLU sued the Obama admin like a dozen times. That said, I don't know which EO you're referring to specifically, so I can't really comment on the specific case. 1.Yes,I think the judge appointed by former president Bush was exercising judicial activism. What else would you call basing a decision on national security on potential "harm" to students and faculty at universities in Washington State. 2.I don't recall "muslim ban" being in the EO's wording,maybe I missed it. I also have no problem with giving immigration priority to an oppressed group,in this case,Christians,who are being openly persecuted. But that's only my opinion 3.The decision I'm referring to goes back to May of 2015 when the 5th circuit court of appeals sided with Texas and 25 other states against Obama's immigration policies. I know CNN's website has a story about it. As I said before,I'm not good at cutting/pasting so I can't get it to link. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 4:13:27 PM  When more than 80 percent of Muslims are not affected by Trump's executive order, how in the world can anyone call it a "Muslim ban." It was directed at several specific countries that have been hotbeds of Islamic Terror. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 4:39:53 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: DelBobcat wrote: I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings. I would agree that the KKK-weed remark is worse. But, Sessions said it was a bad joke. That he didn't mean it seriously. Since I've told some very bad jokes in my life, I can accept that explanation. His actions against the KKK speak loader than his telling an awful joke in my book. I think you'll find out that as US AG he will be fair and impartial, and if some case involving the KKK were to surface he'd come down on them like a ton of bricks. I hope that's the case. But someone here already pointed out that his actions against the KKK have been overblown and overstated by the GOP. I'd also add that he has a long history of saying and doing things that could be construed as racist (and allegedly using the n-word freely). I do believe that he would likely rule against the KKK but I'm not convinced that he'll stand up for civil rights. The best I can hope for is that he doesn't actively undermine them. That's the way a lot of people viewed LBJ before he became president. They were wrong. Time will tell if you are wrong. Here's hoping you are! ;-) Let me add, what you call a "long history" of certain actions seems to actually boil down to the testimony of one person, who is then quoted and re-quoted by others and then previous testimony is dug up and rehashed as though new. Somewhere above I believe I posted a link to an article that at the beginning talks about this guy and his dislike for Sessions. If there was actually good proof that he had used the N-word freely, it would bother me greatly, but I think the evidence was not very convincing on this score. I don't buy the "testimony of one person" argument. The KKK remark was made to an assistant U.S. Attorney named Thomas Figures. The claim that he called the NAACP "un-American" was made by a man named J. Gerald Herbert and also backed up by Figures and he admitted that he believed that the NAACP could be "construed" as un-American. Herbert also claimed that Sessions called someone a "disgrace to his race" for working on a civil rights case, and Sessions is on record as saying the Voting Rights Act is intrusive. His use of the n-word comes from the allegations of a former Mobile County Commissioner named Dan Wiley. So we have at least three sources, with nothing to gain, and Session's own words to incriminate him. But again, I hope I am wrong. Coincidentally, a poll came out today that 51% of Trump supporters believe he should be able to overturn the courts' decision regarding the Muslim Ban Immigration Order. Question for representatives of the rightwing PC police: are we allowed to call people who no longer believe in the separation of powers and checks and balances -- two core principles of our Democracy -- "deplorable"? I want to make sure I find the right balance between protecting our democracy from people intent on giving the President absolute power and making sure the snowflakes on the right don't have their feelings hurt. This poll sounds questionable, since other polls show Ben Carson had a high level of support among Trump voters of all educational levels. Do you have any details on the methodology of this poll? Perhaps respondents just thought minorities who voted Democratic were less evolved. ;-) See, I told you my sense of humor could get me in trouble. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 4:57:02 PM  I think this might have some relevance to the current discussion, since there have been allusions to Republicans being soft in racism: http://tinyurl.com/zgaqzo7 The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,286 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 5:17:17 PM  rpbobcat wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: So you think this Bush appointee is a "judicial activist?" What part of the decision do you disagree with? Do you think Trump's rhetoric about banning muslims shouldn't be admissible? Because here's the problem as I see it: Trump called it a Muslim ban many, many times AND the executive order gives priority immigration status to Christians trying to leave those countries. It is unconstitutional to determine immigration status by religion. So I certainly don't support judicial activism. But that doesn't seem at all like what this is to me. As for your assertion that liberals didn't mind executive overreach when it was Obama, the ACLU sued the Obama admin like a dozen times. That said, I don't know which EO you're referring to specifically, so I can't really comment on the specific case. 1.Yes,I think the judge appointed by former president Bush was exercising judicial activism. What else would you call basing a decision on national security on potential "harm" to students and faculty at universities in Washington State. 2.I don't recall "muslim ban" being in the EO's wording,maybe I missed it. I also have no problem with giving immigration priority to an oppressed group,in this case,Christians,who are being openly persecuted. But that's only my opinion 3.The decision I'm referring to goes back to May of 2015 when the 5th circuit court of appeals sided with Texas and 25 other states against Obama's immigration policies. I know CNN's website has a story about it. As I said before,I'm not good at cutting/pasting so I can't get it to link. 1. I would call it a reaction to the fact that no harm has been caused by refugees from the 7 nations being banned. 2. The EO's wording is not all that's relevant. The Trump Admin's attorney tried to claim the four corners provision -- ridiculous in this context -- and the court rightly looked beyond the document to Trump's own words (and those of advisors like Guiliani) to understand the intent of the order. I know it's popular for Republicans to pretend the things Trump says don't matter, but they do. 3. Like I said, I don't know. I'd need to see some sort of polling to indicate that half of Obama supporters thought Obama should be able to overturn the court's ruling for it to be really relevant to the conversation. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,286 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 5:20:36 PM  OhioCatFan wrote: I think this might have some relevance to the current discussion, since there have been allusions to Republicans being soft in racism: http://tinyurl.com/zgaqzo7 Does that make the right's racism better or worse? Or is the idea that you can justify support for the campaign Trump just ran and the vocally White Supremacist supporters he emboldened if some people on Twitter of uncertain race made racially charged comments at a black senator? I mean, I think we can both agree racism is a problem in this country right? And that racism in this country doesn't adhere to party lines. So what purpose does "but they're racist too" serve here? Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 5:51:20 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: I think this might have some relevance to the current discussion, since there have been allusions to Republicans being soft in racism: http://tinyurl.com/zgaqzo7 Does that make the right's racism better or worse? Or is the idea that you can justify support for the campaign Trump just ran and the vocally White Supremacist supporters he emboldened if some people on Twitter of uncertain race made racially charged comments at a black senator? I mean, I think we can both agree racism is a problem in this country right? And that racism in this country doesn't adhere to party lines. So what purpose does "but they're racist too" serve here? Most of the charges along these lines that I've heard in recent years have been the left saying that people on the right are racists or white supremacists. Senator Scott's experience just shows that there is real hatred with racial overtones coming back the other way. While I'm sure you can find some white supremacists who voted for Trump, to imply that that was a significant enough number to have made much of a difference I think is disingenuous. It's kind of like saying the some known Communists voted for Obama, therefore, he must be a Communist, or at least a Pinko. Racism, and specifically, slavery was our great national "original sin." Of that there can be no doubt and little argument. We are in totally agreement on that score. My major point, made somewhere up this thread (or in another related thread, hard to keep track), is that we all need to stop throwing around the words "racist" and "white supremacist" unless we have real solid, objective evidence. Here, I'm not really talking about any specific case, but just making a general statement that these terms are being overused to the point that when we need to confront real racism or white supremacism that a lot of folks will take a collective yawn because we've cried wolf once too often. Last Edited: 2/10/2017 5:54:13 PM by OhioCatFan The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top Deciduous Forest Cat General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Ohio Post Count: 4,306 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/10/2017 7:36:23 PM  OhioCatFan wrote: When more than 80 percent of Muslims are not affected by Trump's executive order, how in the world can anyone call it a "Muslim ban." It was directed at several specific countries that have been hotbeds of Islamic Terror. ...so long as trump had no business interest there. Back to Top Monroe Slavin General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Oxnard, CA Post Count: 9,121 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/11/2017 1:31:15 PM  OCF--You really wanna make a case that 'the order's okay because it doesn't address 80% of Muslims'...so if it's discrimination, but only against 20%, then it's okay? Again, Trump's EO got skewered when the judge (in Washington, I believe) asked about the number of terrorism deaths in the U.S. since 9/11 by people from the 7 nations...and the U.S. atty said 'don't know' but the judge said 'I know of none.' If preventing Muslin terrorist deaths from these 7 nations is the basis, maybe there should be some proof of same. Contrast killings of Muslims in North America by rightside nutjobs--which have happened recently. Yeah, OCF, 'states rights' wasn't code for racism. And those who want stricter voting ID laws are split 50-50 between the parties, are not mostly Repubs and are not mostly done knowing that they'll affect mostly minorities. RP--Again, show me reasonably legit news sources that a week or so before the election predicted that the Dems would take control of either house of Congress. Because you don't appear to have provided that evidence yet. Nate Silver is not really a news source. And, what was the date of that poll which you posted? Where's the band?! WHERE"S THE BAND?! DesignspiritUSA.com The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping! Back to Top Monroe Slavin General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Oxnard, CA Post Count: 9,121 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/11/2017 1:52:36 PM  oh. oh. it keeps coming. Trump may win the day. We'll see. But if the tide ever turns against him, it will turn huge given all those he's burned and the would-seem-to-be-difficult-to-keep promises that he's made. Image the Repub reaction if Obama did stuff like this (all from one day online): https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-keeps-tripping-tru... https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-keeps-tripping-tru... https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-adviser-discussed-sancti... http://theweek.com/speedreads/679618/president-trump-repo... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-cfpb-has-returned-12b-t... http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a25339/tennessee... / http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4925384-155/eugene-robinson... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-trump-border-wall... https://www.yahoo.com/news/12-2-million-sign-obamacare-de... Where's the band?! WHERE"S THE BAND?! DesignspiritUSA.com The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping! Back to Top C Money General User Member Since: 8/28/2010 Post Count: 3,420 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/11/2017 1:54:25 PM  Monroe Slavin wrote: Nate Silver is not really a news source. Wut? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight#Recognition... In September 2008, FiveThirtyEight became the first blog ever selected as a Notable Narrative by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. According to the Foundation, "In his posts, former economic analyst and baseball-stats wunderkind Nate Silver explains the presidential race, using the dramatic tension inherent in the run-up to Election Day to drive his narrative. Come November 5, we will have a winner and a loser, but in the meantime, Silver spins his story from the myriad polls that confound us lesser mortals".[106] The New York Times described FiveThirtyEight.com in November 2008 as "one of the breakout online stars of the year".[14] Huffington Post columnist Jason Linkins named FiveThirtyEight.com as No. 1 of "Ten Things that Managed to Not Suck in 2008, Media Edition".[107] FiveThirtyEight.com is the 2008 Weblog Award Winner for "Best Political Coverage".[108] FiveThirtyEight.com earned a 2009 "Bloggie" as the "Best Weblog about Politics" in the 9th Annual Weblog Awards.[109] In April 2009, Silver was named "Blogger of the Year" in the 6th Annual Opinion Awards of The Week, for his work on FiveThirtyEight.com.[110] In September 2009, FiveThirtyEight.com's predictive model was featured as the cover story in STATS: The Magazine for Students of Statistics.[20] In November 2009, FiveThirtyEight.com was named one of "Our Favorite Blogs of 2009" ("Fifty blogs we just can't get enough of") by PC Magazine.[111] In December 2009, FiveThirtyEight was recognized by The New York Times Magazine in its "Ninth Annual Year in Ideas" for conducting "Forensic Polling Analysis" detective work on the possible falsification of polling data by a major polling firm.[112][f] In November 2010, Editor-in-Chief of Politico John F. Harris, writing in Forbes magazine, listed Silver as one of seven bloggers among "The Most Powerful People on Earth".[114] In June 2011, Time's "The Best Blogs of 2011" named FiveThirtyEight one of its Essential Blogs.[115] May 2012: FiveThirtyEight won a Webby Award for "Best Political Blog" from the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences in the 16th annual Webby Awards.[116] April 2013: FiveThirtyEight won a Webby Award for "Best Political Blog" from the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences in the 17th annual Webby Awards.[117] June 2016: FiveThirtyEight was named the "Data Journalism Website of the Year" for 2016 by the Global Editors Network, a Paris-based organization that promotes innovation in newsrooms around the world. FiveThirtyEight won an additional award for "News Data App of the Year (large newsroom)" for “Swing the Election,” an interactive project by Aaron Bycoffe and David Wasserman.[118] Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/11/2017 2:12:34 PM  Monroe Slavin wrote: OCF--You really wanna make a case that 'the order's okay because it doesn't address 80% of Muslims'...so if it's discrimination, but only against 20%, then it's okay? You apparently can't read legal documents and laws too well. It was targeted at several countries where terrorist sentiment is the highest and where there is greater likelihood of a refugee, asylum seeker or potential immigrant being a "Trojan horse" terrorist. Also, there is a U.S. statute that clearly gives the president the authority to issue this kind of order. The Ninth Circuit was clearly interjecting its political bias into this decision. It's the most overturned Circuit Court in the U.S. One can argue that the presidential executive order was poorly drawn up and implemented poorly. I would agree with that point, but the basic purpose of the order was sound. Monroe Slavin wrote: Again, Trump's EO got skewered when the judge (in Washington, I believe) asked about the number of terrorism deaths in the U.S. since 9/11 by people from the 7 nations...and the U.S. atty said 'don't know' but the judge said 'I know of none.' If preventing Muslin terrorist deaths from these 7 nations is the basis, maybe there should be some proof of same. This is actually totally irrelevant. In asking that question the judge was clearly interjecting a political tone to the interrogative. The role of the court was to decide if the executive order was legal and constitutional, not whether it was well considered or even effective. Monroe Slavin wrote: Contrast killings of Muslims in North America by rightside nutjobs--which have happened recently. Citations please. Monroe Slavin wrote: Yeah, OCF, 'states rights' wasn't code for racism. And those who want stricter voting ID laws are split 50-50 between the parties, are not mostly Repubs and are not mostly done knowing that they'll affect mostly minorities. OK, we are into blind squirrel territory here. You are actually right that during the Late Rebellion and for years afterwards in the South "states' rights" was a euphemism for at first "right to own slaves" and later the right to establish apartheid and Jim Crow laws. Note, historically, the South was all for a strong central government and against states' rights when the Feds were upholding the Fugitive Slave Law. When individual northern states started to not enforce the fugitive slave statute and the Feds stopped forcing compliance, the South started to sing a different tune. Now, comparing the historical situation of poll taxes, KKK election day violence, etc., to requiring a photo ID to vote is just downright silly. It probably is true that Dems would like more people, who might not actually be citizens, to vote because that's part of their constituency. In terms of minorities being most affected, I suspect that the less educated of all colors might be less likely to have a photo ID, but remember Trump got a higher percentage of the less educated vote this time around, as several on this thread have delighted in pointing out. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top Monroe Slavin General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Oxnard, CA Post Count: 9,121 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/11/2017 2:55:52 PM  Really--That is a nice, long Wikipedia citation. But I see little to say that he's a news (as in regularly scheduled, focused on informing about a wide array of events, having built a reputation for factual truth, etc) source. And, what was the date of the poll/post which rp cited--the timing of rp's claim is what I disputed. I claim that no reputable news source was stating that the Dems would win either house of Congress a week before the election. What evidence was there that these were the countries where "there is greater likelihood of a refugee, asylum seeker or potential immigrant being a "Trojan horse" terrorist"? I'd think that the first evidence would be that were..historical fact...evidence of such AND U.S. entry screening having failed to catch that. Again, google how rather rigorous and time-consuming getting a visa to immigrate from those 7 countries is. Very. Could it be more? Of course, but whether it needs to be and whether it's now lax are far from clear cut. No attacks would seem to mean present policy is working. Lack of actual terrorist attack deaths in the U.S. since 9/11 was not relevant? Then why did the judge ask that question and news sources highlight it? Political or 'activist' judges. On appeal it was 3-0, including Repub appointed judge. And and activist judge is a b.s. designation for a judge who rules against what one wants. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/01/29/5-reporte... https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/30/headlines/texas_mo... Excuse me, I make an assumption that the killings and fire-bombing were rightwing type persons. That may not be true. Please stop broad-swiping and believing only what you want to believe. Yes, Trump may win on appeal or write a new EO that passes. But for now, he was slammed for without-reason or factual basis prejudice. Where's the band?! WHERE"S THE BAND?! DesignspiritUSA.com The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping! Back to Top C Money General User Member Since: 8/28/2010 Post Count: 3,420 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/11/2017 3:30:51 PM  DelBobcat wrote: Wait, is this supposed to prove something? Fivethirtyeight said that they had a roughly 50.7% chance of taking the Senate. That is not the same as saying they will take the Senate. Monroe said to show a reasonably respected source a week out saying that the Democrats would take the Senate. As of Nov. 8 (Election Day) FiveThirtyEight said it was basically 50-50. But if you scroll down past the map, you'll see a line graph, "How the odds have changed". On Nov. 1 (a week out), it was a 66.7% chance the Dems would take the Senate. Of course now he wants to say that isn't good enough, that the polling analysis that all the major news networks cite isn't a "news source". So, fine, here's a video from MSNCB on 11-2 citing both FiveThirtyEight and the New York Times and their projections that Dems would take the Senate. http://www.nbcnews.com/widget/video-embed/798860867728 And here's an article from Bloomberg on 11-1 saying that the projection systems average out to a 68% chance of Dem Senate control. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-01/polls-... Here's the NYT's prediction page, as of Election Day. Scroll down to "How Other Forecasts Compare". Of the 9 predictions listed, ZERO predicted Republican Senate control. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/senate-el... HuffPo, on Nov. 7--the day before the election!--gave Republican's only a 7% chance of maintaining Senate control. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/senate Y'all are welcome for the enlightenment. Back to Top Monroe Slavin General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Oxnard, CA Post Count: 9,121 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/11/2017 4:47:58 PM  I've long stated that I believe in facts first, so let's examine. rp wrote (2/9/17): The week before the election the pundits were saying there was no way the Republicans would hold the Senate and could loose the House too. I responded (2/9/17): please show me any reasonably mainstream source or article which said a week before the vote that the Dems would gain control of either house of Congress. My memory is that no one of repute was saying that. I was right about the House; a week before the election, no one thought that the Repubs would "loose" it. That may have fogged my remembrance of the Senate...but I said 'my memory.' That's why I asked for factual support that I was wrong on the Senate. http://fortune.com/2016/11/05/house-democrats-election-2016 / So, yes, my memory was wrong re the Senate. There was strong consensus that the Dems had a chance to take control of it. Where's the band?! WHERE"S THE BAND?! DesignspiritUSA.com The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping! Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Another protest    Posted: 2/11/2017 4:59:25 PM  Monroe Slavin wrote: What evidence was there that these were the countries where "there is greater likelihood of a refugee, asylum seeker or potential immigrant being a "Trojan horse" terrorist"? I'd think that the first evidence would be that were..historical fact...evidence of such AND U.S. entry screening having failed to catch that. Again, in terms of the legality of the executive order, those facts are not relevant. You may be a good CPA, but your credentials in law are a little lacking. Monroe Slavin wrote: Again, google how rather rigorous and time-consuming getting a visa to immigrate from those 7 countries is. Very. Could it be more? Of course, but whether it needs to be and whether it's now lax are far from clear cut. No attacks would seem to mean present policy is working. Again, not relevant. Monroe Slavin wrote: Lack of actual terrorist attack deaths in the U.S. since 9/11 was not relevant? Then why did the judge ask that question and news sources highlight it? Because the judge was getting political, and the news media like stories that involve conflict and those exchanges showed a conflict. Monroe Slavin wrote: Political or 'activist' judges. On appeal it was 3-0, including Repub appointed judge. And and activist judge is a b.s. designation for a judge who rules against what one wants. While this can often be true, it's not true in the case. Monroe Slavin wrote: Please stop broad-swiping and believing only what you want to believe. Hmm . . . this is a very interesting statement, given the source. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top Showing Replies:   76 - 100  of 170 Posts Jump to Page:   < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7    Next > View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 197 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 197 Guests 0 Registered Users There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties