it will just make more recruitment of hate. that is what they want all along.
hell there was probably a saudi terrorist or two that has already slipped thru the cracks during this ban.
in the 1980s the trump casinos were funded by terrorist money. to help create the rise of terrorism. to help make the raise for a jihadist stronghold. now a man with promise to crush the terrorist has come to power.
follow the money.
follow the lawyer (roy cohn) donalds butt buddy
0
no shiet the ban wont make america safer.
it will just make more recruitment of hate. that is what they want all along.
hell there was probably a saudi terrorist or two that has already slipped thru the cracks during this ban.
in the 1980s the trump casinos were funded by terrorist money. to help create the rise of terrorism. to help make the raise for a jihadist stronghold. now a man with promise to crush the terrorist has come to power.
[/Quote]Still waiting for your fake news link.[/Quote]No link. I got the information directly from a retired US border patrol agent. I just recently met up with him when I went to meet up with members of the minuteman project.
My mistake. I thought the judge had no say in matters of national security. I thought that was up to the president and congress. It's just a matter of time before this so called judge is put in his place. The liberals and establishment will lose. The idea that a judge has the authority to dictate and overrule matters of national security is a joke. I believe a law will be implemented to prevent this act of disgrace from happening again. Our system is clearly flawed. Enjoy it now liberal fruit cakes.
President Trump is going to win. No way a panel of judges is going to side with the idea that a judge can overrule the president in matters of national security. That would make judges commander and chief. The president will be the victor. If not, I expect the new civil war to get really nasty. The idea that liberal judges can overrule the president of the united states will not go over well with the patriots of America.
0
[/Quote]Still waiting for your fake news link.[/Quote]No link. I got the information directly from a retired US border patrol agent. I just recently met up with him when I went to meet up with members of the minuteman project.
My mistake. I thought the judge had no say in matters of national security. I thought that was up to the president and congress. It's just a matter of time before this so called judge is put in his place. The liberals and establishment will lose. The idea that a judge has the authority to dictate and overrule matters of national security is a joke. I believe a law will be implemented to prevent this act of disgrace from happening again. Our system is clearly flawed. Enjoy it now liberal fruit cakes.
President Trump is going to win. No way a panel of judges is going to side with the idea that a judge can overrule the president in matters of national security. That would make judges commander and chief. The president will be the victor. If not, I expect the new civil war to get really nasty. The idea that liberal judges can overrule the president of the united states will not go over well with the patriots of America.
Still waiting for your fake news link.No link. I got the information directly from a retired US border patrol agent. I just recently met up with him when I went to meet up with members of the minuteman project.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:
Still waiting for your fake news link.No link. I got the information directly from a retired US border patrol agent. I just recently met up with him when I went to meet up with members of the minuteman project.
You do not realize you make an azz of yourself, and I don't want to call you out on it. You do it for yourself.
You are an urban dweller, and an illogical, irrational myopic socialist and "social justice warrior" hating on whites with your greivances by committee. Those days are over for the next 8 years.
Go join ANTIFA. Wear a mask....so you don't lose your job
HANDSHAKE
I can't wait for you to tell us where and when you lived in Europe and the Middle East
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:
You do not realize you make an azz of yourself, and I don't want to call you out on it. You do it for yourself.
You are an urban dweller, and an illogical, irrational myopic socialist and "social justice warrior" hating on whites with your greivances by committee. Those days are over for the next 8 years.
Go join ANTIFA. Wear a mask....so you don't lose your job
HANDSHAKE
I can't wait for you to tell us where and when you lived in Europe and the Middle East
Why if trump is so serious about trying to protect us with his travel ban then why did he rescind an order by Obama that barred mentally ill people from purchasing guns?
0
Why if trump is so serious about trying to protect us with his travel ban then why did he rescind an order by Obama that barred mentally ill people from purchasing guns?
Why if trump is so serious about trying to protect us with his travel ban then why did he rescind an order by Obama that barred mentally ill people from purchasing guns?
Again it is law,
A felon does not have the right to bear arms. This found from a court of law perspective. as is domestic violence offenders, these were allowed to be denied ownership of a firearm
as the first amendment bridged that you can not yell BOMB on a plane or when it was determined You can not scream fire in a Movie Theater.
By demonizing a group of citizens by labeling them Mentally ill, you have a broad generalization of what severe Mental Illness would mean.
Obamas ban only affected those receiving social security for Mental Illness. The law would then include a whole range of behavior a Dr of psychiatry could determine as a basis to be mentally ill. from autism , depression, learning or thought disorders and potentially could be determined 2 of 3 Americans could be barred from possession of a firearm defending their home. The law targeted the elderly.
Obama's order did not include congress, hence any executive action taken without ratification of Congress can be unmade by the sitting president or the future president.
You state that mentally ill can not be discriminated against, and the action is a directed program to encourage results in discrimination.
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Why if trump is so serious about trying to protect us with his travel ban then why did he rescind an order by Obama that barred mentally ill people from purchasing guns?
Again it is law,
A felon does not have the right to bear arms. This found from a court of law perspective. as is domestic violence offenders, these were allowed to be denied ownership of a firearm
as the first amendment bridged that you can not yell BOMB on a plane or when it was determined You can not scream fire in a Movie Theater.
By demonizing a group of citizens by labeling them Mentally ill, you have a broad generalization of what severe Mental Illness would mean.
Obamas ban only affected those receiving social security for Mental Illness. The law would then include a whole range of behavior a Dr of psychiatry could determine as a basis to be mentally ill. from autism , depression, learning or thought disorders and potentially could be determined 2 of 3 Americans could be barred from possession of a firearm defending their home. The law targeted the elderly.
Obama's order did not include congress, hence any executive action taken without ratification of Congress can be unmade by the sitting president or the future president.
You state that mentally ill can not be discriminated against, and the action is a directed program to encourage results in discrimination.
A felon does not have the right to bear arms. This found from a court of law perspective. as is domestic violence offenders, these were allowed to be denied ownership of a firearm
as the first amendment bridged that you can not yell BOMB on a plane or when it was determined You can not scream fire in a Movie Theater.
By demonizing a group of citizens by labeling them Mentally ill, you have a broad generalization of what severe Mental Illness would mean.
Obamas ban only affected those receiving social security for Mental Illness. The law would then include a whole range of behavior a Dr of psychiatry could determine as a basis to be mentally ill. from autism , depression, learning or thought disorders and potentially could be determined 2 of 3 Americans could be barred from possession of a firearm defending their home. The law targeted the elderly.
Obama's order did not include congress, hence any executive action taken without ratification of Congress can be unmade by the sitting president or the future president.
You state that mentally ill can not be discriminated against, and the action is a directed program to encourage results in discrimination.
0
Quote Originally Posted by nature1970:
Again it is law,
A felon does not have the right to bear arms. This found from a court of law perspective. as is domestic violence offenders, these were allowed to be denied ownership of a firearm
as the first amendment bridged that you can not yell BOMB on a plane or when it was determined You can not scream fire in a Movie Theater.
By demonizing a group of citizens by labeling them Mentally ill, you have a broad generalization of what severe Mental Illness would mean.
Obamas ban only affected those receiving social security for Mental Illness. The law would then include a whole range of behavior a Dr of psychiatry could determine as a basis to be mentally ill. from autism , depression, learning or thought disorders and potentially could be determined 2 of 3 Americans could be barred from possession of a firearm defending their home. The law targeted the elderly.
Obama's order did not include congress, hence any executive action taken without ratification of Congress can be unmade by the sitting president or the future president.
You state that mentally ill can not be discriminated against, and the action is a directed program to encourage results in discrimination.
Clearly gang violence kills more individuals than the mentally ill.
The gangs are by far more minorities than Caucasians.
hence in this reasoning we should ban all Minorities between the ages of 16-40 from being able to own a gun.. ?, and do so without amending the constitution....
0
Okay, let's take this in a different direction.
Clearly gang violence kills more individuals than the mentally ill.
The gangs are by far more minorities than Caucasians.
hence in this reasoning we should ban all Minorities between the ages of 16-40 from being able to own a gun.. ?, and do so without amending the constitution....
As far, as this temp ban/pause on immigration,, as I see it President Trump
is on firm legal ground and will win out in the end .. at lest in part..
As we have learned in US Government 101 for Trump...(post #81) America is indeed a tripartite system of government ..
..and the Congressional Branch has granted the authority to the Executive branch to temporarily ban any class of aliens from entering the United States — this authority has also been ratified by the Supreme Court's plenary power doctrine..so,, at this point,immigration power is firmly in the Executive Branches hands... ...till new laws are enacted..
More to come in the fall term, but, for now, congratulations on this analysis.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
As far, as this temp ban/pause on immigration,, as I see it President Trump
is on firm legal ground and will win out in the end .. at lest in part..
As we have learned in US Government 101 for Trump...(post #81) America is indeed a tripartite system of government ..
..and the Congressional Branch has granted the authority to the Executive branch to temporarily ban any class of aliens from entering the United States — this authority has also been ratified by the Supreme Court's plenary power doctrine..so,, at this point,immigration power is firmly in the Executive Branches hands... ...till new laws are enacted..
More to come in the fall term, but, for now, congratulations on this analysis.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
