- 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: Those who support the injunction against Trump
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:23 am to Homesick Tiger
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:23 am to Homesick Tiger
I don't have a problem with tightening restrictions on refugees and immigrants from certain areas of the country. This particular EO was obviously rushed out without proper vetting, hence the legal challenges to it, and it being struck down by a few different courts. It's a case of the ends not justifying the means. I'm not a legal scholar so not qualified to argue the legal merits of it. If the Trump team wants to go back to the drawing board and craft one that would pass legal muster, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:24 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
That is EXACTLY what Trump did when he carved out loopholes for Saudi Arabia and Egypt
You forget how we partnered with Russia to bring down Nazism it appears when making that statement. BTW, how did that confrontation work out for the good guys and the bad guys that teamed up together?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:24 am to Homesick Tiger
Ironic huh? The libs hate America and put her down at every opportunity, yet we the only place that has all that "good" stuff that the little children need. Go fricking figure
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:25 am to The Spleen
This could have been the most "perfect" EO in history, and the exact same challenges and the exact same rulings would have resulted.
Funny, he could have enacted a pure Muslim ban under the statute.
Funny, he could have enacted a pure Muslim ban under the statute.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 9:27 am
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:26 am to geauxbrown
quote:
Would you mind presenting us with the numbers of engineers and doctors versus non educated Syrians coming into the country? If not, then you need to STFU and quit screaming about all the engineers and doctors we're losing out on.
Do you really want to parse numbers?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:28 am to udtiger
quote:
This could have been the most "perfect" EO in history, and the exact same challenges and the exact same rulings would have resulted.
We have no way of knowing that.
Honest question, were there legal challenges to the Obama EO that keeps being cited as the same as this one? I honestly don't remember.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:41 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Seems as if they need medical attention so badly they would be willing to find it as soon as possible to a doctor near them as opposed to a doctor halfway around the globe knowing it will take considerable time to clear hurdles to get here.
And if the care they can receive here is better than the care they can receive at home? And if they've already cleared those hurdles, and were on their way here when the ban was dropped into place?
Very weak arguments on your part.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:48 am to BamaAtl
Using 'if' all over the place yet criticizing someone else's argument as weak. You guys are cute.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:50 am to The Spleen
quote:
we have no way of knowing that
Yes, we do.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:51 am to BamaAtl
quote:
if
If I had a million dollars and you had a feather up your arse we would both be tickled wouldn't we?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:54 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
the injunction against Trump
is an injunction against America
and I for one am not going to stand around and listen to a bunch of people badmouthing the United States of America!
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:58 am to Homesick Tiger
I support the law. EOs aren't law. I support the constitution and our system of checks and balances are set up the way they are to prevent the Executive Branch from overstepping its authority.
I honestly don't care if the President's EO "made us safer" and the judge "made us less safe". The theoretical pursuit of increased safety from a threat that the President has blown out of proportion in order to solidify support from his simple minded base is not justification for ignoring law.
If the federal judge made a mistake it'll be corrected at a higher court. That's the way the system works.
There are way too many "Constitutional Conservatives" in this country and on this site that would be on board with giving Trump the power to do whatever the hell he wants with no checks to his power.
Your chance of being the victim of a terrorist attack is less than your God smiting you with lightning.
Stop being sheep.
I honestly don't care if the President's EO "made us safer" and the judge "made us less safe". The theoretical pursuit of increased safety from a threat that the President has blown out of proportion in order to solidify support from his simple minded base is not justification for ignoring law.
If the federal judge made a mistake it'll be corrected at a higher court. That's the way the system works.
There are way too many "Constitutional Conservatives" in this country and on this site that would be on board with giving Trump the power to do whatever the hell he wants with no checks to his power.
Your chance of being the victim of a terrorist attack is less than your God smiting you with lightning.
Stop being sheep.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 10:07 am
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:02 am to Haughton99
Thoughtful response to the fear mongering pussies. Duck!
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:04 am to Homesick Tiger
The safety argument really is hollow when the countries included omit those most tied to us terrorist activity.
If trump was really the bold person people think he is and he claims to be then saudi arabia, uae, etc would be on the list.
Even in that scenario its highly questionable how effective and reasonable this is
If trump was really the bold person people think he is and he claims to be then saudi arabia, uae, etc would be on the list.
Even in that scenario its highly questionable how effective and reasonable this is
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:06 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:My politics are liberty. I plead guilty to not putting security over liberty.
You expose yourselves as not putting the country's safety ahead of your politics.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:09 am to Revelator
quote:
How did we ever get to the point where Americans are more concerned for the needs of immigrants than the safety of its citizens?
Brother, at the core of liberalism is the destruction of America as we know it. They will support anything, ANYTHING, that undermines the fabric of this country and it's constitution. Death by 1M cuts.
They must be utterly destroyed, no doubt about this. We just have to find a way to do it surgically, if we can, in order to preserve what is good.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 10:12 am
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:09 am to Iosh
Meh, unless you go full ancap, that's lame AF
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:13 am to Haughton99
quote:
Your chances of being the victim of a terrorist attack is less
I thought the same thing back in the 60s about abortion becoming legal in the future. Boy was I wrong. I am not looking at this as something that might happen a week, a year of even five years from now but a bad attack here is going to happen. Terrorist's cells now in all 50 states. They ain't there by accident my friend.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:13 am to Iosh
quote:
My politics are liberty
You, sir, are a liar.
Or maybe just stupid.
Or maybe both.
Probably both...
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:23 am to Tigerinthewoods
But he's for liberty! No explanation needed!
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News