The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Because its how i see things. Marriage is man-woman. Always has been, always should.
Transgenders is to ME the same sort of mental illness that we lock people up for if say they think they are XYZ..

So, you have no legal leg on constitutional basis.
You just don't like it.

Yes they should go. THEN come back in legally.

Why would they -want- to come back?

SO quoting the bible to the flock is 'denigration' of other's rights?

Quote it to the flock all you want, keep it out of the law.
Oh, and YES, there is plenty of denigration of human rights in the bible.

[SoulReaver]

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/...pent-year.html
http://crooksandliars.com/2017/02/on...nt-more-travel

President @BarackObama's vacation is costing taxpayers millions of dollars—-Unbelievable!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2012

good example of pot calling kettle, uh, black

[aretood2]

On trump reading from the bible, just cause one reads from it, does Not mean that's 'the law'.

Even though YES< many of our laws were based ON biblical / Christian beliefs, and thus "We are a Christian nation", doesn't mean that the Bible overrides the law..

Irregardless, the person I was speaking to, to them, this does matter a whole lot more than it does to you.

THEY maybe here CAUSE of what their parents did, but they have not made the attempts to get legal themselves, have they?

There is no legal recourse for them. Thus the issue at hand.

If they are here illegally how then LEGALLY< can they sign the papers, which is what you do when you sign up for school/get scholarships, since they need SSNs etc, unless they are using fake IDs/forged ids etc?

At this point you're just looking for reasons to kick them out.

Well, lets see. THEY label the Family Research Council (a Christian based group that believes in the biblical rules on marriage as an 'anti-gay hate group'.. Same as a # of other churches or family groups.. Heck one called "H.O.M.E, Hetrosexual Organization for a Moral Environment, as Anti-LGBT just cause they support a PRO Hetro/moral lifestyle..
Check out this link that argues my point better..
http://www.charismanews.com/culture/...d-a-hate-group

It seems just holding a conservative view point is enough for the SPLC to put you on their "Hate map"..

I said churches, not organizations or activist groups. Churches, I'm sure Wikipedia can explain what a church is. So I repeat my question, what churches are on their list?

As for me joining them, i am agostic, so i don't join churches...

The operative word here being "would".

WE already HAVE visa waivers for victims of human trafficking, nice try.

Irrelevant to what you said.

Most of us are actually against our money being used to provide abortions. NOT pre-natal care..

Yet republicans in Congress have complained about providing pre-natal care. Just one example of several that I can find

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/op...he-unborn.html
The governor, whose veto was overruled, didn't like it.

And apparently it divided republicans in that state
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...a-republicans/

And this youtube clip shows a congressman who was against it (Tennessee) and referred to them (the unborn, or the mothers, I can't quite tell) as rats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE237g7KI8Y

YES it does.. "ALL persons born in, and subject to the jurisdiction there of". SINCE They are still citizens f their home country, they are still subject to THAT jurisdiction.

That's not how jurisdiction works...if that were true, then they wouldn't be subject to any of our laws effectively giving them immunity from prosecution of any crime.

A wrongly interpreted application of it. yes. IT was made to allow those born to SLAVES to become citizens. The left have just warped it, to mean anyone born here..

The Supreme Court over 100 years ago said no. The 14th amendment applies to foreign nationals living in the US. It didn't state anything on their legality because that still didn't really exist. You can look up the case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. It stated that if the person being born is required to follow US laws then it is under US jurisdiction.

If you note, it doesn't apply to diplomats kids, CAUSE THOSE diplomats are still under the jurisdiction of their HOME COUNTRY.. SAME as illegal aliens.

As United States v. Wong Kim Ark stated, the reason why is that those kids are not required to follow US laws, it's called diplomatic immunity. This is why the US can't jail diplomats, they are not under the jurisdiction of the US.

I had to do a double take myself, when i heard that..

Good thing he isn't running the country, because that would be very disconcerting....

[Falcon Horus]

Did you not understand that I'm saying that it is the unions who are destroying the system that is supposed to educate the children for their own benefit?

Here you go, educate yourself beyond your rightwing (yes, the first google search gave me nothing but rightwing union-blah-blah) sources:

A paper from 2012 (a little outdated) -- touching on the subject about how the unions are partially responsible for some of the educational downfall -- however, also contribute greatly to the educational reform in less negative ways.

Teachers Unions in America: Are They Helping Or Hurting Our Education System? by Karla Guerrero (University of Chicago -- Civitatis Child Law Center)

Plenty more interesting papers in the CCLC-link.

Or his desire to restructuring a lot of the red tape so its EASIER for companies to stay here and bring in good jobs?

Oh, so Trump threatening to slam them with high import tariffs is the new normal.

Is he going to slam high import on this own companies, you think?

We are a country of laws before we are a country of the bible...

*snort*

Could have fooled me.

Big difference Falcon. Entering the country illegally applies to ALL who do it not just adults. Being just a passenger in a car when the DRIVER commits a crime does NOT MAKE all others in that car guilty of breaking the law.

By comparison, yes they are all guilty of the same crime.

The car crossing the border with the parents in front and the kids in the back, or the car hitting someone with the parents in front and the kids in the back.

The kids did not have a choice whether to go for that drive.

...but for other folks also reading these discussions who might be in continuous lurk mode.. and maybe need clarification or a reminder of the past in contrast with current events?

If they want to engage in conversation, they would come out of lurk-mode and join the conversation or add their comments or thoughts.

This is a thread of engagement and passion for the subject.

So yes, without those "lurkers" you are in fact talking to all of us.

You seem to forget these are *public* discussions, similar to blog responses elsewhere on the internet. And until such discussions are moved to a *private* forum area, there are perhaps other people reading this stuff besides just us posting on here. For all I know, the CIA, NSA, all political parties (just because they ARE political and this *is* a political discussion topic), along with Obama's OFA are also reading this stuff.. just saying..

There goes her paranoia again.

For example, like the refugee/immigration *pause* (for vetting) that President Obama set in place that President Trump merely continued with. Of course, Obama "fast-tracked" the order by EO, to get the refugees in ASAP, when the time seemed *to be of the upmost urgent essence*. And so when Trump signed a continuation of the pause but with a slower/perhaps more intense vetting process...

Oh for crying out loud... The vetting process hasn't changed since Obama started it, or whomever started it. Vetting process for immigrants takes between 18 and 24 months -- that's two frakkin' years.

Obama didn't fast-track anything. And Trump's ban is a ban.

Let's say if Flynn did exactly what he said, and did *nothing* legally wrong.

He did do something wrong. Get with the program.

He lied.

How? You just contradicted yourself. President Obama put this rule into action. If President Trump continues to sign the remaining amendment, this is an Obama regulation to begin with. Therefore, your (GF) comment makes no sense.

Obama put it into action, the House will roll it back.

In government and economic contexts, rollback metaphorically denotes action to repeal, dismantle or otherwise diminish the effect of a law or regulation.

Oh, Trump blasted those persons responsible for irresponsible behavior (both in gov't and MSM) right out of the proverbial water, and then some.

So, you must know what happened in Sweden friday night?

(FH) You can scream as loud as you want, but God's not gonna hear yah. You've already stated in various ways that there is a super sound-proofed barrier between you, your ranting, and God's ears.

I was under the impression, but please correct me if I'm wrong, that I was talking -- in this case, according to internet etiquette, more like yelling -- at YOU. Oh look, yelling again.

If you want my own personal opinion, I've sort of become numbed to your rantings, and will continue to do so, because of which side of the proverbial political and spiritual fence you're on.. (It's difficult to separate politics and religion with your particular reactive comment. Again, I'm just saying for FYI..=)

Well, since you're being so honest... I had you on ignore for the better part of the last 5 years or so. But due to a recent discovery that I can't actually receive nor see the green you do occasionally tend to spread around, I lifted your ban.

Mmm... my rants? What rants?
Gatefan, do I rant?

Jelgate, stay out of this one.

My spiritual fence bothers you that much... ... it's rainbow colored by the way.

Usually, it is sometimes my version of emphasis (did *not* know there were "rules" against this sort of thing).

For someone who spends a lot of time on a multitude of forums, I'm surprised you've never heard of the internet etiquette (which in this thread, we break on a regular basis).

Proper Internet Etiquette: Email, Social Media, and Texting Guidelines

I used to never like listening to the news whenever Trump was on before he even lined up to become a presidential candidate. Wouldn't even give him the time of day. National Enquirer stories set that distaste mode into action, and I never watched "The Apprentice" because I was too biased to think Trump had an ego almost bigger than Lucifer.

And yet, you fall for his MSM is fake news act.

...but in his connections with the general little guys in our USA land. There is more treasure in words spoken that go beyond measuring even gold where *actions speak louder than words* that really count and make a difference.

The local GW LOL-emoji doesn't cut it here...



#45 couldn't care less about the "little guys", and his vocabulary is even smaller than the little guy.
It isn't as tremendous as he wants it to be.

...Maybe that goes over your (FH) head, but that's the way I see it.

Wow, you must feel really superior right now.

Ummm.. not so fond of a federal agency being able to dictate curriculum. That is not "staying out of it".

If you even let their foot in the door, the day will come when the feds try to dictate curriculum in some manner.

The Fox has that covered already:

"...DeVos, whose family has long supported causes associated with the Christian religious right, has publicly called education reform a way to "advance God's kingdom.""

"...if you want a model of how choice programs might work in a DeVos-run Education Department. It unites three broad concepts that DeVos is friendly toward: 1) Privatization 2) religious education and 3) a hands-off approach to accountability for private schools."

Oh yeah, this woman in charge is going to put America's education back on the map... not really, but whatever you want to believe, I guess:

"As secretary of education, DeVos will be tasked with pushing Trump’s plan to steer $20 billion in existing federal public education funding toward private vouchers that pay for private schools, perhaps tapping into $15 billion in so-called Title I money that goes to schools that serve the country’s poorest children."

[Gatefan1976]

Do you rant?
Can I plead the fifth?

No, you don't generally rant, at least no more than any of us do sometimes.

[SoulReaver]

his connections with the general little guys in our USA land

so far he's very connected to his taxpayers - especially their wallets

[jelgate]

As the person who knows FH the longest, yes she rants when it's something she cares about. Most of them were Stargate related

[Falcon Horus]

then modify the so-called "anchor baby" law so that the child has the US citizenship given by fact of birth on US soil but also the natural citizenship of the country of origin by fact of his relation by blood to his parents...in effect a dual citizen.....purusant to this modification of the "anchor baby" law....if illegal aliens who've birthed children on our soil are caught....if their child is still a minor they must take the child with them...however if their child is an adult by the time they are caught out he can be given the choice to stay if he so chooses or go back with his parents

I would add that the child would be allowed to finish their school on US soil so that at least they can have a good degree and make something of their lives.

I mean, it would mean Garhkal wouldn't have to complain about why they are still coming back.
They could use the acquired knowledge to make their own country great.

I only did so, because FH kept bringing up some cult-like "love-thing" affection she believes I am having for Trump, and why I wasn't criticizing President Trump in the same ways the rest of you folks here on GW have been and still are verbally bashing him.

Because he's incompetent for the job.

Come on, what makes him competent for the job? Convince me that he's worthy of the Presidential title, worthy to be in the WH -- and don't say because he won, because he lost the popular vote (Not a word, Annoyed! I mean it, not a word.) and his EC win wasn't as large as he likes to tell everyone.

Give it your best shot!

I would like to take this opportunity to announce that I unfortunately perished in the horrific terrorist attack in Sweden on Friday. I hope you will mourn me in the same manner as you mourn the victims of the Bowling Green and Atlanta attacks.
The Guardian - Trump cites non-existent terror-attack

We are Sweden!

As a sidenote however: he might have meant Sehwan in Pakistan.

Sehwan shrine bombing: Isis claims responsibility for suicide attack killing at least 72 at Sufi Muslim site

However, that happened thursday the 16th of February, and not friday evenng. And also the air travel (bird fly) shortest distance between Pakistan and Sweden is 4,978 km = 3,093 miles.

So perhaps, a little geography lesson is in order.

*redirects Jel to T.A.H.I.T.I.*

It's a magical place.

Even though YES< many of our laws were based ON biblical / Christian beliefs, and thus "We are a Christian nation", doesn't mean that the Bible overrides the law.

So, before the bible there was no law?

You might want to read up on the subject...

"Succeeding generations of legal scholars throughout Europe adapted the principles of ancient Roman law in the Corpus iuris civilis to contemporary needs. Medieval scholars of Catholic church law, or canon law, were also influenced by Roman law scholarship as they compiled existing religious legal sources into their own comprehensive system of law and governance for the Church, an institution central to medieval culture, politics, and higher learning."

Source: The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (University of California at Berkeley)

Well, lets see. THEY label the Family Research Council (a Christian based group that believes in the biblical rules on marriage as an 'anti-gay hate group'...

They have actively donated money to bills specifically targeting LGBT equality rights.

If I'm not entirely mistaken, they even donated to Prop8 (same as Devos' mother's foundation).

Heck one called "H.O.M.E, Hetrosexual Organization for a Moral Environment, as Anti-LGBT just cause they support a PRO Hetro/moral lifestyle.

LOL -- I wonder how long they had to brainstorm to come up with that. Not a bad acronym.

Also, Garhkal, I'm currently browsing the Southern Poverty Law's list of 18 anti-gay groups, and this might be of interest to you. They look at the groups and determine their status as hate group by comparing them to different factors, however this is not a factor that automatically makes them anti-LGBT:

"Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups."

This is what they use for measurement instead:

"Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling."

A small coterie of groups now comprise the hard core of the anti-gay movement

And HOME made the list -- I think you would feel right at home with these guys.

As for me joining them, i am agostic, so i don't join churches.

HOME is agnostic.

A wrongly interpreted application of it. yes. IT was made to allow those born to SLAVES to become citizens. The left have just warped it, to mean anyone born here.

Like the right warped the 2nd amendment.

I heard from several people, that it's Illegal to ask someone for "Proof they are disabled", if they ask for certain things (like service dogs etc), but if that's the case then why can you be ticketed for parking in a disabled spot without having the proper documentation (the disabled tags or plackard)?

Illegal like asking a woman her age, you mean?

Parking in a disabled spot always requires the proper documentation.

Well, isn't that the exciting thing? In the next four years you'll wake up everyday and the first thing you'll think about in the morning is "Let's see what that Trumpl has done NOW again..."
That's life when you've got the laughing stock of the world as your president.

Here you go:

good example of pot calling kettle, uh, black

Tax-dollars at work!!

[Gatefan1976]

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/...pent-year.html
http://crooksandliars.com/2017/02/on...nt-more-travel



good example of pot calling kettle, uh, black

Those articles are slightly misleading as the put the whole bill on trump himself, which is not actually accurate, it's worse than that:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ake_money.html

So, US tax dollars are directly subsidizing trumps businesses indirectly.

[Gatefan1976]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media...21-gui9dl.html

[SoulReaver]

Those articles are slightly misleading as the put the whole bill on trump himself

on the taxpayers
I'd have no problem with the LSOS paying for his vacations with his own money (though even his business money isn't entirely his)



btw alt-right's just another euphemism for far-right...right?

[Annoyed]

No. I would characterize alt-right as the nutjob side of the right. Actually behaving like KKK and so forth. Sort of like the right's version of those far left wing nuts that want a guaranteed minimum income, free everything type world.

[SoulReaver]

No. I would characterize alt-right as the nutjob side of the right. Actually behaving like KKK and so forth. Sort of like the right's version of those far left wing nuts

then why not also call the latter the "alt left"?

[Annoyed]

No, I have far more accurately descriptive names for those folks, but I can't use them on a PG rated board.

Seriously, I didn't coin the term alt right.

[SoulReaver]

No, I have far more accurately descriptive names for those folks, but I can't use them on a PG rated board.

hey at least those on the alt-left can still be considered "folks" :|