- 14,693
- 20,121
- Joined
- May 14, 2013
@ Faux objectivity.
2018 is the year of irony.
Faux objectivity is lesson 1 in trolling 101
![Laugh :lol: :lol:](/styles/default/xenforo/NTemojis/laugh.gif)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
@ Faux objectivity.
2018 is the year of irony.
Who are these people on the left who want open borders?
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...nt-open-borderswe-are-not-going-let-it-happen
"The Democrats want open borders," Trump told the crowd.
"Let everybody come in. Let everybody pour in -- we don't care, let them come in from the Middle East, let them come in from all over the place. We don't care.
"We are not going to let it happen! By the way, today I signed an executive order. We are going to keep families together, but the border is going to be just as tough as it's been. (Cheering)
"Democrats don't care about the impact of uncontrolled migration on your communities, your schools, your hospitals, your jobs, or your safety. Democrats put illegal immigrants before they put American citizens. What the hell is going on?
"Illegal immigration costs our country hundreds of billions of dollars. So imagine if we could spend that money to help bring opportunity to our inner cities and our rural communities and our roads and our highways and our schools."
This is how I know you're disingenuous. How is it impossible if it has been done before? How is it stupid if it gives you the kind of people you pretend to want here (economically productive folks)? How is it stupid if it going avoid creating more economic burden on the government and its agencies?Yes, thank you for summarizing, generally ...
The only actionable suggestion so far in this thread has been to allow illegal immigrants who currently reside in the U.S. (illegally btw) to stay, provided they are "productive" ...
This equates to memorializing criminals ... I just cant rock with that because the "productive" requirement is too broad will practically just grant amnesty to everyone without vetting ... that's not only infeasible, it's stupid ...
What? 100% of the people who broke federal law(s), including those overstaying their visas should be removed and get in line behind those trying to make it legally ...So how many of these so called illegals do you think are criminals % wise relative to their population. What if I told you it’s less than the criminal % of americans compared to the American population?
The Supreme Court has issued disturbingly contradictory rulings this term in two significant cases dealing with the right of minority groups to be protected from discrimination. Taken together, they turn the purpose of the First Amendment’s establishment clause on its head.
A few weeks ago in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court found that statements by the commission’s members invalidated the commission’s finding in favor of a same-sex couple who were denied a wedding cake by a Christian baker. The remarks at issue were extremely attenuated and general, and the Supreme Court majority acknowledged that they were subject to multiple interpretations.
Nonetheless, and because of those remarks alone, the court tossed aside the Colorado commission’s ruling that the baker, Jack Phillips, discriminated against David Mullin and Charlie Craig in refusing to bake them a wedding cake. In Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words, constitutional protection for the freedom of religion prohibits even “subtle departures from neutrality.”
Yet, on Monday, in its ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, the court found that the president’s long record of undisputed anti-Muslim animus was insufficient to invalidate a policy banning millions of Muslims from traveling to the United States.
Unlike in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, there is no ambiguity about President Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim history. His statements are not subject to multiple interpretations and their hostility toward religion is so well-documented that it was not even being disputed by the government. As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent, the “evidence of anti-religious bias” should be “a sufficient basis to set the Proclamation aside,” particularly because — as a bipartisan group of dozens of national security experts concluded — the national security justification for the ban is so thin.
Although the court’s decision focused on the powers of the president under the immigration laws, this case at its core was always about whether politicians can demonize and vilify a religious group and still be allowed to implement policies that specifically target that group. The record of religious animus before the Supreme Court was undeniable. Yet, contrary to its statements in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the conservative majority put all that history to the side and allowed Trump’s Muslim ban to remain fully in effect.
In her own dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor scathingly called out this contradiction. The court in Masterpiece Cakeshop had “found less pervasive official expressions of hostility and the failure to disavow them to be constitutionally significant,” she wrote, yet now the majority allowed “a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States’” to go forward.
At the end of the day, the only meaningful difference between Masterpiece Cakeshop and Trump v. Hawaii is that Jack Phillips is Christian and the millions of people targeted by the ban are Muslim. The slightest hint of hostility toward religion is intolerable to the Supreme Court when directed at mainstream Christian beliefs. But years of well-documented, unambiguous animus toward Islam does not hold enough weight to invalidate a policy that has no viable alternative justification. Rather than shielding religious minorities who are at risk of persecution against discrimination, the religion clauses in the Constitution are being used by the court to provide exclusive protection for the religious beliefs of one particular religious group — even when those beliefs harm minorities who need protection, as in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
The establishment clause was, in both its origins and early interpretations, fundamentally about protecting religious minorities and allowing religious pluralism to flourish. It was a commitment to the principle that America would be an open and tolerant place for all.
With its recent rulings in these twin cases, the Supreme Court has turned that principle upside down.
Indeed it is. So far this year the Court has delivered blow after to blow to workers: from Janus v. AFSCME, which will crush the ability of workers to organize, to Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which will make it far more difficult for workers to use the legal system to remedy abuses. On Monday, the Court upheld racist gerrymanders and gutted antitrust enforcement. Tuesday, the Court upheld Trump’s Muslim ban and blocked a California law that “crisis pregnancy centers” had to provide information about abortions. As Democratic contenders for 2020 are staking out positions like a federal job guarantee and Medicare for All, the threat of a Supreme Court that could reverse progressive legislative accomplishments looms large.
David Faris, a professor of politics at Roosevelt University who wrote a book arguing that progressives need to fight back against Republican procedural extremism, said that, while the constitutional basis for Medicare for All is sound, another right-wing justice on the Court could “open up the possibility of overturning crucial decisions from the late ’30s, decisions which finally upheld New Deal reforms. If the constitutional basis of the Social Security Act is overturned, for instance, then Medicare for All becomes impossible too. We’re not that far away from this scenario,” he said. “Federalist Society zealots have openly wanted to bring back the Lochner era for decades.”
Lol ... come on son ... watch the video and stop lying to yourself ...I feel like Maxine's initial statement was a bit too strongly worded but it was also blown out of proportion at the same time. Republicans are acting like she said those second amendment people should go do something about Trump administration officials. I don't recall her exact clarification but she pushed back against the idea of her advocating for non-peaceful confrontations. The tricky part is not taking confrontation into the harassment/abuse territory.