2024

651,533 Views | 10633 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by historian
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Frank (Biden) Galvin: "The First Amendment says the government shall not establish a national religion. Requiring immigrants to adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs is inconsistent with that."

Pretty silly take.

First, the First Amendment says Government may not establish a state religion. It never said people could not practice their beliefs freely and openly, in fact it says the opposite. Frank seems to be confused by ACLU and other fake rights groups, who lie about the Constitution to attack religion where they don't like it.

Second, no one is "requiring" immigrants to "adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs", but denying that the United States has been Christian in character and moral foundation for pretty much its whole history is really dishonest, but again that's what Democrats do.

But to Whiterock's point, the one Frank ducked, every country has a culture, a way of life that immigrants should reasonably try to support and join, simply because that makes their own life better. The US has always been more free than most nations in its defense of religious choice, including atheism, paganism and in the case of the Left, Moron Worship.

But every community prefers the new resident who pays his way, does no harm, is courteous and tidy, and respects the traditions in place where he arrives. Newcomers who do not work, leave trash in their yards, who are rude to their neighbors and disrespect the community are unacceptable, no matter where they come from, California, Mexico or wherever.
Who do you think would be imposing and enforcing Trump's religious test? It would be the Government.

No one is denying our history. But that history includes tolerance of other religious beliefs. That concept is enshrined inthe First Amendment. You can't ignore it.

You apparently understand the concept becuase you admit that we have traditionally been free in our defense of religious choice. The point you obviously do not understand is that Trump would change that freedom by requiring deference to Judaism or Christianity as a condition of immigration and therfore as a condition of citizenship other than by birthright.

Your last paragraph is either irrelvant or implies that only Jews and Christians mow their lawns.

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Weak, dishonest answer from Frank. Not worth more of a response than that.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Weak, dishonest answer from Frank. Not worth more of a response than that.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong in your own strange way.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Weak, dishonest answer from Frank. Not worth more of a response than that.
Thank you for admitting you were confirming I was wrong in your own strange a way I don't like.
Corrected for accuracy.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Frank Galvin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Weak, dishonest answer from Frank. Not worth more of a response than that.
Thank you for admitting you were confirming I was wrong in your own strange a way I don't like.
Corrected for accuracy.
Do you really think declaring yourself correct makes you correct?

For review your issue was that Trump's proposal to vet immigrants based on religious belief would be okay because it would not be a government action. I pointed out that the pretry obvious point that the government is the entity that would be imposing the restriction, which you find to be a "weak response."

That is really just infantile. What you are actually saying is that Trump is infallible so you will just defer to him.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're spewing to the point that you don't even care about spelling now.

Calm down Frank, it's just the Internet.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank SpewSpittle: "Do you really think declaeing yourswelf correct makes you correct?"

Interesting spelling, pal. But no, being correct allows me to claim so.

Frank CloudShouter: "Frr review your issue was that Trump's proposal to vet immigrants based on religious belief would be okay becuase it would not be a government action."

Never said that, boyo. You got all worked up that most Americans are Judeo-Christian, and I pointed out a bit of cultural history. Unlike you, I never brought up Trump at all. If you cannot deal with Trump as the 45th President of the United States and the fourth largest ego to occupy the Oval Office, maybe you should leave him out of the discussion.


Frank Faarquaad: " I pointed out that the pretrty obvious point that the government is the entity that would be imposing the restriction, whihc you find to be a "weak response."

You are lying again, oh angry boy with many keyboard issues. You were presented with American tradition and culture, you tried to change it into Trump, and I laughed at your failed attempt.


Frank PissDepends: "That is realy just infantile. What you are actually saying is that Trump is infallible so you will just defer to him."

Again, Frank, you brought up Trump, I never mentioned him. You may need some serious professional help, if your delusions extend to seeing Trump when he is not even mentioned.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Frank SpewSpittle: "Do you really think declaeing yourswelf correct makes you correct?"

Interesting spelling, pal. But no, being correct allows me to claim so.

Frank CloudShouter: "Frr review your issue was that Trump's proposal to vet immigrants based on religious belief would be okay becuase it would not be a government action."

Never said that, boyo. You got all worked up that most Americans are Judeo-Christian, and I pointed out a bit of cultural history. Unlike you, I never brought up Trump at all. If you cannot deal with Trump as the 45th President of the United States and the fourth largest ego to occupy the Oval Office, maybe you should leave him out of the discussion.


Frank Faarquaad: " I pointed out that the pretrty obvious point that the government is the entity that would be imposing the restriction, whihc you find to be a "weak response."

You are lying again, oh angry boy with many keyboard issues. You were presented with American tradition and culture, you tried to change it into Trump, and I laughed at your failed attempt.


Frank PissDepends: "That is realy just infantile. What you are actually saying is that Trump is infallible so you will just defer to him."

Again, Frank, you brought up Trump, I never mentioned him. You may need some serious professional help, if your delusions extend to seeing Trump when he is not even mentioned.


I brought up Trump because this is a thread about 2024 presidential candidates and Trump is the one who made the proposal we are discussing.

I am a poor typist. You are an idiot.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1. You brought up Trump

Thank you for finally admitting that

2. I am not an idiot for disagreeing with you, nor for pointing out your many logic blunders

Grow the F up and stop getting mad when someone calls you out

3. The election is not about Trump unless you support him

Seems like you would have figured that out by now, but maybe that's too much to ask.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

1. You brought up Trump

Thank you for finally admitting that

2. I am not an idiot for disagreeing with you, nor for pointing out your many logic blunders

Grow the F up and stop getting mad when someone calls you out

3. The election is not about Trump unless you support him

Seems like you would have figured that out by now, but maybe that's too much to ask.
There are plenty of people on here who I disagree with and can have a reasonable conversation with. You-not so much because you will not provide reasoning for your positions.

Here your position was that Trump's proposal to vet immigrants on the basis of religious belief would be constitutional because the establishment clause only applies to the government. I pointed out the obvious-an immigration policy administered by the government would be government action.

Then you went off on a tangent rather than address the point. Why don't you address the substance of my argument-explain how Trump's proposed imigration policy would not be government action.

Answer: you can't address it and you can't admit you are wrong.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Oldbear83 said:

1. You brought up Trump

Thank you for finally admitting that

2. I am not an idiot for disagreeing with you, nor for pointing out your many logic blunders

Grow the F up and stop getting mad when someone calls you out

3. The election is not about Trump unless you support him

Seems like you would have figured that out by now, but maybe that's too much to ask.
There are plenty of people on here who I disagree with and can have a reasonable conversation with. You-not so much because you will not provide reasoning for your positions.

Here your position was that Trump's proposal to vet immigrants on the basis of religious belief would be constitutional because the establishment clause only applies to the government. I pointed out the obvious-an immigration policy administered by the government would be government action.

Then you went off on a tangent rather than address the point. Why don't you address the substance of my argument-explain how Trump's proposed imigration policy would not be government action.

Answer: you can't address it and you can't admit you are wrong.

Wow, even more bilge!

Just admit you went off on wild-ass assumptions and you'll look less the fool.

You threw out a BS claim, I called you on it and explained, and now you wet your pants getting mad.

And I notice you are still obsessing on Trump. Get help, son.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Frank Galvin said:

Oldbear83 said:

1. You brought up Trump

Thank you for finally admitting that

2. I am not an idiot for disagreeing with you, nor for pointing out your many logic blunders

Grow the F up and stop getting mad when someone calls you out

3. The election is not about Trump unless you support him

Seems like you would have figured that out by now, but maybe that's too much to ask.
There are plenty of people on here who I disagree with and can have a reasonable conversation with. You-not so much because you will not provide reasoning for your positions.

Here your position was that Trump's proposal to vet immigrants on the basis of religious belief would be constitutional because the establishment clause only applies to the government. I pointed out the obvious-an immigration policy administered by the government would be government action.

Then you went off on a tangent rather than address the point. Why don't you address the substance of my argument-explain how Trump's proposed imigration policy would not be government action.

Answer: you can't address it and you can't admit you are wrong.

Wow, even more bilge!

Just admit you went off on wild-ass assumptions and you'll look less the fool.

You threw out a BS claim, I called you on it and explained, and now you wet your pants getting mad.

And I notice you are still obsessing on Trump. Get help, son.
1. You never responded to the argument.
2. I referenced Trump because he is a candidate for 2024 and we are talking about his proposal.
3. Ignore is my friend, I won't be talking to you anymore.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank ****Pants: "1. You never responded to the argument."

Of course I did. You just didn't like that I am not a Trumpist as you expected/needed me to be.



Franky YellowDrips: "2. I referenced Trump becuase he is a candidate for 2024 and we are talking about his proposal.""

No, you 'referenced Trump because you are obsessed with him. I only referenced the issue of immigrants as it came up.


Frank CompleteLoser: "3. Ignore is my friend, I won't be talking to you anymore"

Well, running away is something you have experience at, and is probably your go-to move by now.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Frank Galvin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Weak, dishonest answer from Frank. Not worth more of a response than that.
Thank you for admitting you were confirming I was wrong in your own strange a way I don't like.
Corrected for accuracy.
Do you really think declaring yourself correct makes you correct?

For review your issue was that Trump's proposal to vet immigrants based on religious belief would be okay because it would not be a government action. I pointed out that the pretry obvious point that the government is the entity that would be imposing the restriction, which you find to be a "weak response."

That is really just infantile. What you are actually saying is that Trump is infallible so you will just defer to him.
Oldbear is seldom thoughtful
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

Frank Galvin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Frank Galvin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Weak, dishonest answer from Frank. Not worth more of a response than that.
Thank you for admitting you were confirming I was wrong in your own strange a way I don't like.
Corrected for accuracy.
Do you really think declaring yourself correct makes you correct?

For review your issue was that Trump's proposal to vet immigrants based on religious belief would be okay because it would not be a government action. I pointed out that the pretry obvious point that the government is the entity that would be imposing the restriction, which you find to be a "weak response."

That is really just infantile. What you are actually saying is that Trump is infallible so you will just defer to him.
Oldbear is seldom thoughtful
Insults from Waco1947 are high praise.

Waco never compliments the good, only attacks it. So I am in good company.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


One would think that Trump would be leading Biden by double digits. As of yesterday, the race was within the margin of error. Why?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


and so it begins
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Which presidential candidate posted the following:

"Writer Maggot Hagerman of the Failing New York Times wrote almost her entire FAKE story today about the Trump Hating Judge's Gag Order (They love to silence me!), rather than the Racist Attorney General's STAR witness chocking like a dog on the Witness Stand (Perry Mason?), and admitting that I NEVER asked him to do anything wrong, He also admitted that he lied to Congress Under Oath, AGAIN, brand new charges. THAT MEANS THEY NO LONGER HAVE A WITNESS, OR A CASE."

"She also failed to report that the Trump Hating Judge refuses to respect or accept the Appeals Court decision reversing him, a first!. Maggot should focus her energies on Corrupt Prosecutors and Judges, whose hatred and bias is so great that they are unable to make a fair and reasonable decision. New York is crime ridden and dying, but I will save it in 2024… It can't come too fast!"
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You see Oso, the thing about Free Speech is not that it should protect words and opinions you like and support, but that it should, even must, protect words and opinions you do not like or support.

Suppressing the statements of Trump may amuse the judge and those who dislike Trump's words, but it can be legitimately argued that Trump has the right to take his case to the public and generate support if he can by his public statements. Just as the Fifth Amendment protects the accused from being forced to testify against himself, there is among some legal minds the argument that a defendant must be allowed to make his case to the public if he so wishes.

If Trump damages his case among the public by his words, that is on him. But by issuing an order throttling what a defendant may say, even if the judge believes the statements are insulting and have no place in the courtroom, the judge has reinforced in some minds the contention that Trump has been convicted in advance of his trial, that the proceedings are a sham and serve no true purpose beyond political lawfare.

The enemies of Trump have been very quick to say that no one is above the law, focusing on the former President. Yet they seem oblivious to the fact that they also must comport their words and behavior by the same standards they claim apply to the defendant.

And before the inevitable 'MAGA' accusation, I am and remain a DeSantis supporter, but that does not mean I cheer on lynching parties.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




Good.

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:


Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He defended the Constitution on Jan 6. This cycle just isn't working for him
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

He defended the Constitution on Jan 6. This cycle just isn't working for him
He's a role player, he isnt an all star..

Clinton was smooth, W was a very likable average guy type, Obama was young and charasmatic, Trumps ego came in the room before him..

Biden.. i got nothin
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

He defended the Constitution on Jan 6. This cycle just isn't working for him


Fly on head was end. Creepy

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

He defended the Constitution on Jan 6. This cycle just isn't working for him
He's a role player, he isnt an all star..

Clinton was smooth, W was a very likable average guy type, Obama was young and charasmatic, Trumps ego came in the room before him..

Biden.. i got nothin
Biden did as his handlers told him to do.

Pence had no chance. He has zero charisma, is not known for defending American rights, yet has a McCainesque habit of giving the middle finger to his own party at times.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

He defended the Constitution on Jan 6. This cycle just isn't working for him
He agreed on a course of action which would have worked, and he chickened out. Just like he did on that bill in Indiana back when he was governor.

The time to say "no" on whether or not to use his powers with EVs to throw the election into the House of Representatives is not the moment before the ceremony starts. It's from the outset of the plan. Dude talks a good game and postures & preens the part, but folds under pressure. Prototypical "all hat, no cattle" dude.

First Page Last Page
Page 49 of 304
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.