@zeb1 you appear to have been right. I haven’t read much on Gorsuch, but at first glance, he appears to be a solid advocate of the plain text reading of the Constitution ala Scalia.
I tell you what, though, I’m not sure he’ll fall in line with a “Muslim Ban” if it comes down to it.
Couple this:
with this:
This is interesting too:
Well. that sure is a weird angle to defend a murderous terrorist spreading theocratic regime that is Saudi Arabia.
My husband can administer beatings whenever he feels like it, I can’t drive, walk around without an accompanying guardian nor leave the country without my husband’s consent, but 10 weeks… Wow.
My wife was 26 weeks om paid maternity leave with our second child, 52 weeks with our third, and all that without a hijab and no beatings.
Edit: I just saw that Linda Sarsour is in fact Palestinian-American from Brookyln - no Saudi woman would be exposed so much in the media. She’d be singing a different tune if she actually lived there.
Saudi Arabia, like Russia, is usually admired by fanboys (fangirls?) from a safe distance.
Two separate articles on the same raid in Yemen.
Do people undecided on the “Trump is working for Russia!” canard find this post convincing?
He didn’t even bother to take on what I said just labelled it as stupid.
This is also evidence that if you read something over and over long enough you can convince yourself of anything.
First-generation immigrants often bring large chunks of their native-country mores with them. Then, over time, they assimilate, and their mores change. It’s certainly not the case that culture-of-origin is fixed (Or as you put it, “You can take the family out of the tribe, but you cannot take the tribe out of the family”). You even contradict yourself on this score by referring to Muslim friends hailing from communities that have more-or-less “Westernized.”
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is illegal in the US. Thus, these people do receive “our condemnation and the full weight of our justice system.”
I don’t think that’s for you to say.
I explained the symbolism of this upthread.
Again, I don’t think that’s for you to say.
The difference is simple. Slavery is irredeemably evil under all circumstances, whereas Islam (and therefore the hijab) is not.
You hit on a point that I think is worth emphasizing.
It can get a little tricky labeling Supreme Court Justices as “liberal” or “conservative”…AND feeling as though this will translate into them somehow always ruling in favor of your “side”.
What’s the old saying (and I ALWAYS get it wrong!)…“One man’s Freedom is another man’s Sin?” (or something like that!)
This had led to people thinking that a Supreme Court Justice “betrayed” their “side”…when in fact the decision may have been well thought out and equally applied to all Citizens.
On the surface…Gorsuch seems pretty solid…
DAMN you, @smh_23!
I can’t look at the guy now without thinking “…Rinse Penis…Porn Star…!”
I explained in plain English that hereafter you will not be taken seriously because by asking “what was stopping the CIA from investigating him prior to the election?” you exposed yourself as ignorant of the basic, Voxplainer-level fact – repeatedly and explicitly taught to you over the course of this argument – that Trump has been at the center of an IC-spanning investigation predating the election by months. That you managed to make it through this beating without absorbing that simple, central datum is an impressive feat of near-inhuman rational failure.
Or did you mean that I didn’t “take on” the part about how Trump give teh biznus to teh family therefore no puppet? You’ve got me there: I didn’t spend a minute on that utter shit, and I don’t plan on it.
Yes…she actually linked to an article on Facebook to show Sharia Law isn’t all bad lol:
https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5788f567e4b03fc3ee507c01/amp?client=safari
Watching smh emphatically prove raj’s intellectual dishonesty is quite amusing. Should’ve made popcorn to start the day…
Yeah…I know he used to write professionally. I’d pay to see him rip someone like that in a live debate!
You would.
She is.
ED and I got into a spat over this very issue.
You would be correct. It doesn’t help that her husband is, arch-Tory, Niall Ferguson
The UK left have been completely chewed up by this issue. Ioppar has nailed it. The hard left embraced political Islam because it was as reflexively anti-Western, anti-American and anti-capitalist as they are. I would post the tweet from Linda Sarsour regarding interest rates under Sharia, but a quick google search for that should reveal some of the overlap for you.
If he’s allegedly been the centre of IC investigations for months and they still cannot arrest him maybe you should take a clue that it’s bullshit. Do you know how easy it would have been to destroy his presidency if they could have released something tangible? His campaign would be over if they had honest to goodness evidence
And for the last time:
You have no idea what they found and they haven’t released anything specific to the public for us to judge.
you ignore his track record of never embezzling money or any other crimes. People don’t just magically turn 70 and decide to commit treason.
He’s way more to lose than gain. That’s why dismissing his business and business interests in the US, his children and legacy clearly shows you can’t even establish a real motive.
With Hillary Clintons emails we have actual evidence we can sort through and make up our own mind if she should be convicted. With Trump it’s an alleged investigation by the intelligence community.
Post the damning evidence itself instead of relying on intelligence reports.
Maybe this is why George Bush managed to start a war in Iraq without evidence. US intelligence will say whatever is politically needed.
“They have WMDs!”
“Trump has ties to Russia!”
edit: George W. Bush's CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD "intelligence" was a lie | Salon.com
Self-aware black man beats his societal conditioning.
This is an absolutely staggering display of burying one’s head in the sand. The general topics (Trump’s long and decorated history of lawsuits, fraud, and questionable finances) were discussed ad nauseam during election season, so we might as well “agree to disagree” now, but it’s unbelievable that you can say this with a straight face.
What’s interesting (to me, anyway) is the selective nature of your skepticism. I’m not saying you’re wrong to be skeptical of what you read - I think we all should be somewhat skeptical of everything. What’s funny is that you’re only skeptical of things you don’t want to believe; when it’s something that agrees with your view, there’s no such skepticism present. You posted YouTube conspiracy theories and quote “alleged” things as fact when convenient for your desired argument (“There is a black guy claiming Bill Clinton as his father” being one highlight) but when the stream is running the other way, it’s time to pump the brakes. Why aren’t you applying the same level of skepticism to everything?
Thank you USMC it takes a man to give credit where it is due. And we have a couple of adult children on this site who are more than happy to ridicule a person when that person happens to be wrong. They use long flowing sentences to insult and demean. This helps them feel superior which makes up for the sorry life that they must be leading. I don’t speak to those types any longer. Okay, I digressed a bit. But I do appreciate your kind words.
I agree with you on this point. Gorsuch will most likely never go along with a Muslim ban. But then again I don’t think Trump is expecting that based upon how he is operating currently.
Time will tell as always.
It appears we’ve arrived at the point at which you become an encyclopedia of wormish logical fallacy and already-defeated arguments – a muppet tossing handfuls of shit at the wall, desperately hoping that the mess will distract people (maybe even you yourself are hoping to be distracted) from your inability not only to win an argument but even to articulate the outline of one in a coherent, basic-facts-in-order, at-least-this-guy-gets-what’s-going-on-at-a-superficial-level sort of way. You don’t know how federal counter-terrorism investigations work; you don’t understand the unprecedented gravity – and the consequently unprecedented assiduity – at play; you don’t even understand the basic contour of the case against which you’re mounting this miserably useless shell of a defense. And now we have arrived at that instant Greenwald-Hannity alt-right classic, Loudly and Stupidly Misunderstanding the Failures Preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom For the Purpose of Using Historical Illiteracy as Cover for Current-Events Illiteracy. Many of us have had the OIF battle on these boards before – and I mean the detailed, primary-document-level version, not the Herrenvolk-scumbag-suddenly-linking-to-worthless-Lefty-shitrag-Salon version. Needless to say, I won’t be wasting the next couple days teaching you that complex lesson. If you find yourself wondering why, go back over the last day’s worth of entries in this debate.
Actually, what the hell, right? I’ll illustrate by quickly analyzing yet one more of your trademarked faceplants. In your last post, you accuse me of…
…which is unfortunate for you, your argument, and your credibility in light of the fact that, just fuckin’ yesterday, I included the following in my summary of evidence-suggesting-motive:
Keep in mind, of course that when Trump attaches his clown-painted facade to a Bayrock-financed project in SoHo, for example, this is what idiots like you consider to be “business interests in the US.” So too with any other Trump-branded shithole dug into US soil, regardless of the fact that, as a Trump might put it, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross- section of a lot of our assets.”
So, even you can probably see what happened here. You descended to the Orwellian netherworld where up is down and down up – where I am dismissing Trump’s business interests by making a case that explicitly adduces as supporting evidence…Trump’s business interests.
That concludes our business for the day.
That black fellow has a very good understanding of what the real problem is. It’s a shame that our former black President didn’t take a stand like that.
