President Trump's 2nd immigration of Muslim suspension judicially blocked

[sear]

According to news broadcast at 10:AM/ET, President Trump's 2nd immigration of Muslim suspension has been blocked by judicial action,
on basis that Trump's second attempt isn't sufficiently different from the first.

[Drummond]

According to news broadcast at 10:AM/ET, President Trump's 2nd immigration of Muslim suspension has been blocked by judicial action,
on basis that Trump's second attempt isn't sufficiently different from the first.

.. And what opinion do you hold on this ?

[sear]

Thanks for asking D #2, but why play your cards so close to your vest?
You want my opinion, but you neglect to post even a hint of your own opinion?

Why?

[Drummond]

Thanks for asking D #2, but why play your cards so close to your vest?
You want my opinion, but you neglect to post even a hint of your own opinion?

Why?

You started the thread. Did you have a specific intention behind it ? To advance a view .. or, to trawl for others, without giving your own ?

Why not tell us your opinion ?

[sear]

"You started the thread." D #4

Yes. I remember.
But if I'd forgotten, I'm listed as "started by".

"Did you have a specific intention behind it ?" D #4

Do you actually think I could honestly answer no to that question?

OF COURSE I had specifics in mind.

And since you're so fond of stating the perfectly obvious, I'll mirror the bad habit.

a) This is a recreational current events BBS.

b) Relevant current events reports create prime topics here.

c) Donald Trump campaigned on a xenophobic platform. "I'm gunna build a wall." And don't forget, - suspend the immigration of Muslims "until we figure out what the Hell is going on!" -

d) Trump supporters seemed to find something appealing about his exaggerated style, and lofty promises: I'm gunna "make America great again".

e) Trump said the first thing he was going to do was repeal Obamacare, and replace it with something better. He's already washed out on that, if for no other reason than he's missed his own deadline. He's been in office nearly two months.

f) It's reported that Trump's popularity is at record low for any U.S. president in modern public opinion polling history for this stage of his first year in office.

g) It's reported in the news. You think it's not worthy of discussion in this forum?

"To advance a view .. or, to trawl for others, without giving your own ?" D #4

For discussion.
Perhaps you don't understand how conversation works. I'll explain.
- A topic is introduced.
- Then someone volunteers a perspective.
- Then someone else adds to it.
- Some others may join in.
- There may be agreement, disagreement, refutations, additional insights, and more.

You seem to be suggesting that because I didn't divulge my entire spectrum of perspectives on the topic in the Lead, that I'm somehow deficient. Anal retentive perhaps?

And if I may add, I've been asked for personal information that is not at this time germane in this forum.

But I will divulge this.

I've been either Moderator, or Administrator at Internet current events sites since the previous millennium.
I have literally decades of experience at it, mainly with Ezboard / Yuku, but at Runboard and others as well.

I know what I'm doing, even if no one else here does. And I'm painfully aware that one reliable way to stifle a thread is to cram all there is to be said about it, into the Lead post.

That is but one of the reasons I didn't. I welcome comments ON THE TOPIC from every member of this cyber-community.

So instead of giving us all the Nervous Nellie routine, why not relax, and comport your posts to the constructive style this cyber-community deserves?

"Why not tell us your opinion ?" D #4

Not only am I looking forward to it. I wouldn't have introduced the topic otherwise.

Do you assume that because I haven't by post #4, that I won't?

My opinion is evident. My opinion is, this is a topic worthy of discussion in this cyber-community. But I do not wish to impose. I'm not going to be the lone poster in this thread, the only one to contribute.

I think I've made a viable start. If no one else wishes to comment, then perhaps I have mis-assessed the appetite in this community.

We'll see.

But I confess. Early indications are not encouraging. The one other poster that's commented seems more concerned about me than the topic, and rather than assuming the best, has posted disparaging inference against me. Yet more undeserved, unearned ad hom.

Why even go there? Have you considered simply commenting on the topic, the way you would for a thread started by anyone else but sear?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Did you expect otherwise?
Is it not obvious that his opposition has sold out liberal asshats in powerful positions in our judicial system?
People that are nothing more than sold out traitors to this nation's sovereignty and world power...
Treason is in my friend, as evident from 8 years of the obama regime... and the Clintons engaging in such deeds , unabated and even lauded for their actions..-Tyr

[sear]

"Expectation is the death of serenity." psychologist Joy Browne
"Did you expect otherwise?" TZ

No.
But I often require it as a prerequisite for my participation.

"Is it not obvious that his opposition has sold out liberal asshats in powerful positions in our judicial system?" TZ

In some cases yes.
And while I don't have the stats before me at the moment, I have no specific information that "liberal asshats" are significantly statistically more corrupt than conservative asshats, or Republican asshats for that matter.

"People that are nothing more than sold out traitors to this nation's sovereignty and world power..." TZ

I hold you TZ in utmost cyber-esteem. Please do not infer more than I imply.
My following comment is NOT about you personally.
My following comment specifically addresses a very narrow assertion which YOU have made.

"People that are nothing more than sold out traitors to this nation's sovereignty and world power..." TZ

Your posted comment re-quoted immediately above is a severe insult to Republicans.

a) So far as I know, there's no statute of limitations on treason.

b) To my knowledge, Republicans control or dominate:
- the house
- the senate
- the exec., & dominate or on the verge of dominating our
- 9 member SCOTUS.

If the quotation related to valid legal reality, and was not instead just idle political clap-trap, then it would be the sworn duty* of our elected officials to address such treason.

They are obviously not.

So either the entire U.S. federal government is in a vast left-wing conspiracy, Democrats & Republicans alike, to overlook such high crime/s, - OR -
Ockham's Razor, a political partisan is posting wild exaggerations under anonymity of pseudonym in a recreational current events forum, where it will be in terms of law and governance, entirely inconsequential.

It is the latter which is the more likely explanation.

"All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie

"Treason is in my friend, as evident from 8 years of the obama regime..." TZ

And the entire United States, including our Republican leaders:
President Trump
Majority Leader McConnell
Speaker Ryan
Chief Justice Roberts
ignore it as if it wasn't there.

Candidly, between you and me sir, I believe that's the most likely explanation. It's not there.

If you think I'm wrong, do us ALL a favor. Hire a lawyer. The ACLU might help you out.
Be a HERO to the cause, to what is morally right, to what is legally right, to your nation, and to your People.

Why is it I get the feeling that's not gunna happen?

* These government servants, legislators, execs., and justices, are sworn to uphold the Constitution. And the Constitution defines treason in Art.3 Sect.3.

traitor (trâ´ter) noun
One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin trâditor, trâditor-, from trâditus, past participle of trâdere, to betray. See tradition.]

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"Did you expect otherwise?" TZ

No.
But I often require it as a prerequisite for my participation.

"Is it not obvious that his opposition has sold out liberal asshats in powerful positions in our judicial system?" TZ

In some cases yes.
And while I don't have the stats before me at the moment, I have no specific information that "liberal asshats" are significantly statistically more corrupt than conservative asshats, or Republican asshats for that matter.

"People that are nothing more than sold out traitors to this nation's sovereignty and world power..." TZ

I hold you TZ in utmost cyber-esteem. Please do not infer more than I imply.
My following comment is NOT about you personally.
My following comment specifically addresses a very narrow assertion which YOU have made.

"People that are nothing more than sold out traitors to this nation's sovereignty and world power..." TZ

Your posted comment re-quoted immediately above is a severe insult to Republicans.

a) So far as I know, there's no statute of limitations on treason.

b) To my knowledge, Republicans control or dominate:
- the house
- the senate
- the exec., & dominate or on the verge of dominating our
- 9 member SCOTUS.

If the quotation related to valid legal reality, and was not instead just idle political clap-trap, then it would be the sworn duty* of our elected officials to address such treason.

They are obviously not.

So either the entire U.S. federal government is in a vast left-wing conspiracy, Democrats & Republicans alike, to overlook such high crime/s, - OR -
Ockham's Razor, a political partisan is posting wild exaggerations under anonymity of pseudonym in a recreational current events forum, where it will be in terms of law and governance, entirely inconsequential.

It is the latter which is the more likely explanation.


"Treason is in my friend, as evident from 8 years of the obama regime..." TZ

And the entire United States, including our Republican leaders:
President Trump
Majority Leader McConnell
Speaker Ryan
Chief Justice Roberts
ignore it as if it wasn't there.

Candidly, between you and me sir, I believe that's the most likely explanation. It's not there.

If you think I'm wrong, do us ALL a favor. Hire a lawyer. The ACLU might help you out.
Be a HERO to the cause, to what is morally right, to what is legally right, to your nation, and to your People.

Why is it I get the feeling that's not gunna happen?

* These government servants, legislators, execs., and justices, are sworn to uphold the Constitution. And the Constitution defines treason in Art.3 Sect.3.

Really???
All that to in essence just to say, -- both sides are guilty-why don't--YOU- do something about it?

To play along and cut to the chase too, I ask, surely you would now explain on what legal standing and with what claimed damages may a citizen of this nation, accuse its very government of treason and hope to win in the very judicial system that one has so boldly and correctly accused of said treason?

However, were I wealthy enough to make such a doomed from the start attempt, it would have to be only for publicity purposes --for no logical minded, sane person would act in such a futile and arduous task..
I being but a humble Southern man, that speaks his mind, seek no publicity.
I do now and have in the past spoke of that shadow government within our government, which is globalist servants/plants, serving the one world government cause(thus MY openly admitting my being guilty of indifference to the point of being wisely sane and even a bit depressed).
Could one man have ever destroyed the Roman Empire?
And yes, we but play here to our own whims, desires, needs, wants, biases and temperamental leanings.( yet again this old dog pleads guilty).
I am but a product of my family raising, personal destiny and human frailties..
Have thee, enough mercy not to shoot me, for what man tis not?--TYR

[sear]

"Really???
All that to in essence just to say, -- both sides are guilty-why don't--YOU- do something about it?" TZ

Not exactly.
You seem to have overlooked a key word in the sentence you may be referring to: "if".

So are you admitting that you're wrong? That your Chicken Little characterization that a government-wide conspiracy is allowing conspirators to Treason in the U.S. go free is nonsense?

"Could one man have ever destroyed the Roman Empire?" TZ

Perhaps.
But there are force-multipliers in existence today that did not exist then.
More directly, there's no need or net benefit to consider the matter by substitution.
It's the alleged government-wide conspiracy to and cover-up of treason that is the issue, which can be addressed directly, as I have.

I'm sympathetic to your existentialist tilt. But I wouldn't over-play it.
Progeny is not destiny. Think Schopenhauer.

"Man can do as he wills,
but cannot determine what he wills." Artie S

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"Really???
All that to in essence just to say, -- both sides are guilty-why don't--YOU- do something about it?" TZ

Not exactly.
You seem to have overlooked a key word in the sentence you may be referring to: "if".

So are you admitting that you're wrong? That your Chicken Little characterization that a government-wide conspiracy is allowing conspirators to Treason in the U.S. go free is nonsense?

"Could one man have ever destroyed the Roman Empire?" TZ

Perhaps.
But there are force-multipliers in existence today that did not exist then.
More directly, there's no need or net benefit to consider the matter by substitution.
It's the alleged government-wide conspiracy to and cover-up of treason that is the issue, which can be addressed directly, as I have.

I'm sympathetic to your existentialist tilt. But I wouldn't over-play it.
Progeny is not destiny. Think Schopenhauer.

I made no argument that you are wrong(which is a separate consideration) . However, I did address why your idea that I as a lone citizen take on the massive burden of trying to correct the wrongs and/or abrogation of sworn duty of our Federal government officials was a bit silly..

Fair warning, when you insult by calling my replies --chicken little follies--you can and will receive the same considerations going forth--should you think to continue such behavior. Do understand, you have caught me while in a generous mood, thus I let one pass, this time.
Continue and I will just mark you off as one trying to stir the pot and garner attention.

By the way, speaking of overplaying ones hand, if you are going to play both sides against the middle-be fair enough to criticize both sides as equally as possible based upon your own abilities..
Otherwise you are simply buying cover, to be able to pretend fairness, while engaging in a clever smearing of the other side....-Tyr

[sear]

"I made no argument that you are wrong" TZ

Correct. Not an "argument", but an implication.

"I did address why your idea that I as a lone citizen take on the massive burden of trying to correct the wrongs and/or abrogation of sworn duty of our Federal government officials was a bit silly.." TZ

ABSOLUTELY there ARE silly approaches & scenarios to it:

BUT!!
Not all of them are.

Surely the delusion (perhaps akin to the one you've imagined) of ~320,000,000 (the entire U.S. population, minus one) conspire as you describe, and one Don Quixote tilts at the windmill alone, and defeats them all; yes! Silly indeed.

BUT !!

That was not my suggestion. You would be wise to exclude the absurd when interpreting my words, if there are rational explanations consistent with the same comment.
There's historic precedent for one man changing history, even in the face of national conspiracy.
We needn't go back to J.C. to cover that.
Gandhi, Mandela, and perhaps MLK come to mind.

"Fair warning, when you insult by calling my replies --chicken little follies--you can and will receive" TZ

Charming. I intend to hold you to that, except for one thing. It's not a personal insult.
It's a characterization, perhaps technically a literary reference to wild suspicions proved to be, if not immediately obviously false. It wasn't anything that addressed you. It was merely a dope-slap to the preposterous notion that there's a U.S. federal government-wide conspiracy of treason, and that every government official responsible for addressing such dire crisis is in on it.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9814&stc=1

It's not even PLAUSIBLE !!
Candidly, I think Chicken Little had the more persuasive claim. At least there is a sky. And there are occasionally "micro-bursts", the micro-meteorological term for the sky falling.
But there is no bipartisan conspiracy to treason in the U.S. as you describe it.
I'm willing to wager just about any amount of blood or treasure you're willing to match, that the bipartisan conspiracy to treason as you've described it here is utter nonsense. It exists if at all, only in your mind; in my logical opinion.

"--should you think to continue such behavior." TZ

Yes. I fully intend to. Anyone that posts a tale that tall should in my opinion be called on it.
From there it's a very short route to unicorns, and the Easter Bunny. I prefer reality-based discussion.

"By the way, speaking of overplaying ones hand, if you are going to play both sides against the middle-be fair enough to criticize both sides as equally as possible" TZ

Thanks for your advice.
Should I ever decide to try playing "both sides against the middle", I'll consider your guidance further.
But I have absolutely no plan for it. To the contrary, my agenda is the truth; and thus for me to do as you've suggested would work against my own purpose.
Thanks none the less.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"I made no argument that you are wrong" TZ

Correct. Not an "argument", but an implication.

"I did address why your idea that I as a lone citizen take on the massive burden of trying to correct the wrongs and/or abrogation of sworn duty of our Federal government officials was a bit silly.." TZ

ABSOLUTELY there ARE silly approaches & scenarios to it:

BUT!!
Not all of them are.

Surely the delusion (perhaps akin to the one you've imagined) of ~320,000,000 (the entire U.S. population, minus one) conspire as you describe, and one Don Quixote tilts at the windmill alone, and defeats them all; yes! Silly indeed.

BUT !!

That was not my suggestion. You would be wise to exclude the absurd when interpreting my words, if there are rational explanations consistent with the same comment.
There's historic precedent for one man changing history, even in the face of national conspiracy.
We needn't go back to J.C. to cover that.
Gandhi, Mandela, and perhaps MLK come to mind.

"Fair warning, when you insult by calling my replies --chicken little follies--you can and will receive" TZ

Charming. I intend to hold you to that, except for one thing. It's not a personal insult.
It's a characterization, perhaps technically a literary reference to wild suspicions proved to be, if not immediately obviously false. It wasn't anything that addressed you. It was merely a dope-slap to the preposterous notion that there's a U.S. federal government-wide conspiracy of treason, and that every government official responsible for addressing such dire crisis is in on it.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9814&stc=1

It's not even PLAUSIBLE !!
Candidly, I think Chicken Little had the more persuasive claim. At least there is a sky. And there are occasionally "micro-bursts", the micro-meteorological term for the sky falling.
But there is no bipartisan conspiracy to treason in the U.S. as you describe it.
I'm willing to wager just about any amount of blood or treasure you're willing to match, that the bipartisan conspiracy to treason as you've described it here is utter nonsense. It exists if at all, only in your mind; in my logical opinion.

"--should you think to continue such behavior." TZ

Yes. I fully intend to. Anyone that posts a tale that tall should in my opinion be called on it.
From there it's a very short route to unicorns, and the Easter Bunny. I prefer reality-based discussion.

"By the way, speaking of overplaying ones hand, if you are going to play both sides against the middle-be fair enough to criticize both sides as equally as possible" TZ

Thanks for your advice.
Should I ever decide to try playing "both sides against the middle", I'll consider your guidance further.
But I have absolutely no plan for it. To the contrary, my agenda is the truth; and thus for me to do as you've suggested would work against my own purpose.
Thanks none the less.

A friendly hint before I break this off, due to my boredom(WHICH IS MAINLY BECAUSE YOU THINK TO PARSE EVERY WORD, THEN FIND A THOUSANDS SHADES OF GREY TO CAST EACH INTO)
To truly show integrity, intelligence(and/or brilliance) one must not try to nuance every thing to death.
Here is hoping you , can and/or will live up to being less obtuse and a little more prone to speaking in everyday language and less prone to
cutting each comment into a biology type dissection..
Later, maybe...-Tyr

[aboutime]

Would anyone, any member here, care to explain, or disclose WHEN the member called 'sear', became the SOLE, ARROGANT, hypocrite who believes HE/SHE is in charge here, and the ONLY member authorized to control other members by Imitating the Intended Phony Charms of one..Barrack Obama. Who was also convinced he was far above everyone else when it came to being SUCH A JERK?

[Elessar]

Would anyone, any member here, care to explain, or disclose WHEN the member called 'sear', became the SOLE, ARROGANT, hypocrite who believes HE/SHE is in charge here, and the ONLY member authorized to control other members by Imitating the Intended Phony Charms of one..Barrack Obama. Who was also convinced he was far above everyone else when it came to being SUCH A JERK?

He's only impressing himself aboutime...that seems to be his mission.

After all, he did state in one of his opening comments right at the start that he was here to PERSUADE members.

Good Fooking Luck with that! Not with his dissecting diatribes!:laugh:

[aboutime]

He's only impressing himself aboutime...that seems to be his mission.

After all, he did state in one of his opening comments right at the start that he was here to PERSUADE members.

Good Fooking Luck with that! Not with his dissecting diatribes!:laugh:


Thanks. I thought so too! But he verifies he is NUCKING FUTS! Most arrogant, patronizing, wannabe hero's talk out their butt...just like him/her.
We still haven't heard any verification about the so-called Military angle.