- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BREAKING: DHS suspends implementation of travel ban
Posted on 2/4/17 at 11:22 am to BamaAtl
Posted on 2/4/17 at 11:22 am to BamaAtl
quote:
You see the world in black and white? That must be so tiring.
no but objective rules are needed when we're talking about potential legal policy, especially when that policy threatens to dissolve liberty and/or property (and esp when due process is pretty discarded)
quote:
Because words have 2 definitions, and your examples clearly use the one we're not?
you're picking a definition you want to avoid discussing your values
you see the world in black and white? must be so tiring
1
Posted on 2/4/17 at 11:27 am to BamaAtl
quote:
the word discrimination as we mean to use it
You (or is it 'we' who's talking?) are now defining words?
First you dig up a definition for bigot when the discussion was based on your (or is it 'our'?) initial post where you used the word bigotry.
Then you find a definition for the derived word, bigot, which uses "treat/treatment" beyond the context of formal definition to -I suppose- provide the flimsiest of threads to support your gause-like argument that somehow the First Amendment outlaws bigotry from the minds (and hearts?) of US citizens.
BTW, there is absolutely nothing in the etymology or definition of the word bigotry that discusses definitive actions, such as "treat/treatment".
Any such understanding of the word bigotry could only be arrived at by predicating a meaning of "treat/treatment" upon the divination of another's thoughts (mind reading).
For example, 'She assembles only with Christians. She must have a bigotry toward Muslims (the mind-reading happened here). Therefore, her exclusive assembly with Christians is an outward "treatment" of and against Muslims that is a resulting manifestation of her bigotry (previously ascertained by reading her mind/thoughts).' Such tautology!
I divine that your thoughts include a desire to control the thoughts of others.
I'm guessing your next 'project' will be to outlaw prejudice.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 11:34 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Thousands upon thousands in the US?! OMG?! Link?
Holy frick, you are stupid. This is not a topic you want to take on.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 11:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
no but objective rules are needed when we're talking about potential legal policy, especially when that policy threatens to dissolve liberty and/or property (and esp when due process is pretty discarded)
Luckily, we have the Constitution and over 200 years of legal precedent to guide us in the matter.
quote:
you're picking a definition you want to avoid discussing your values
I'm not, you're attempting to substitute a definition that I'm not using to make a point that you couldn't otherwise make.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 11:54 am to joshnorris14
quote:
Come on in, ISIS!
not one victim for those seven nations...zero, nada, zilch, bupkis
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:19 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Your word, which you used at the very beginning. My point, which remains in response to your first word, which you have still not rebutted in any way whatsoever.
I'm not, you're attempting to substitute a definition that I'm not using to make a point that you couldn't otherwise make.
Anyone who cares to read the thread can and will see this.
You are worse than dishonest, you are phony.
Enough with you.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:23 pm to joshnorris14
It should be heartening to you Lefties that Trump, unlike Obumbles, recognizes and accepts checks and balances.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:26 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Luckily, we have the Constitution and over 200 years of legal precedent to guide us in the matter.
when courts rely on your "rules", we get the situation i describe (often using the 14A, which you celebrated earlier)
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:26 pm to i am dan
quote:
This is not a topic you want to take on.
You're out of your depth here, Donnie.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:27 pm to Knight of Old
quote:
Your word, which you used at the very beginning
Correctly, I might add.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:45 pm to i am dan
quote:
Not many Christians care about homosexuality these days
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:52 pm to joshnorris14
This is a joke. Electoral college works as designed. Trump wins. Works for his voters to do what he promised. Dems use the broken judicial system to "back door" get what they want anyway? The same state that the dems win in election file lawsuits against new president to stop what he's trying to do. It's not illegal, but they just don't like it and are suing. Lawsuits are ruining this country and now at the highest level. I am embarrassed for this country and what its future holds. People who are not citizens and don't live here DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COME HERE. I am a citizen and demand that my govt protect my family. Its why i pay taxes.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:58 pm to joshnorris14
Which kid of any of these liberals are they willing to sacrifice when a member of Isis or other member of a terroist who embeds in the unvetted refugees coming in blows up a mall theater or school or gym or whatever on a Saturday? They are more concerned with the rights of people who want to come here than they are the safety of their own family.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 2:05 pm to texastigerr
why don't all these people that are so concerned with taking in refugees step up and take them in their own homes and take care of them until they can get on their feet and take care of themselves...
if you are really that concerned get some skin in the game...
if you are really that concerned get some skin in the game...
Posted on 2/4/17 at 3:16 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Luckily, we have the Constitution and over 200 years of legal precedent to guide us in the matter.
So. With that being said. Will someone on this board PLEASE provide an unbiased and logical explanation as to where in the Constitution does it say, "these rights pertain to all individuals of the world"?
I thought the Constitution protects the rights of the "American citizen", as well as providing power where and when power is needed to the entities protecting us.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:24 pm to BamaAtl
# of deaths caused by white racist
# of deaths caused by muslims.
Should we do this nationally or globally?
You chose.
# of deaths caused by muslims.
Should we do this nationally or globally?
You chose.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:25 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
Do they have running water where you live?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News