What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

I'll say to anybody who voted for Johnson, Stein, or who didn't vote at all, tell us how you feel? Hillary supporters knew this was going to happen. Trump supporters almost to a man want all this to happen. That leaves the too cool to vote for a major candidate crowd left to tell us what the F they were thinking last November.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

FlagDUDE08 said:
They're not in the country yet. The Constitution only applies to those already in the country.
Click to expand...

Yeah some of them were only fighting to protect us...even you and your idiotic/racist notions. My lord you are just scum...

And no it wasnt right Jimmy Carter kept out Iranians but at least that made some sense. Funny the real hate mongers in Saudi Arabia arent part of the ban.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Brenthoven said:
And as a nation, we worked to change those laws. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. Again, these are separate trains of thought.
Click to expand...

So when do you make the choice to transition from defending a legal law to fighting against an unjust law?

At some point one has to go from supporting the law as written to fighting against laws that are bad, all the while they are the law of the land.

Lest we forget, the law interning Japanese people is STILL the law of the land. I'm certainly not going to support that in any way, shape or form.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

alfablue said:
It's interesting to see so many opportunities for Gun Owners who want to be so very constitutional for the 2nd Amendment stand up for the rest of the constitution.

I should point out- if you do NOT do that, don't expect ANY support what so ever for yours. If you want protection for your single amendment, and want others to follow your reasoning, then you MUST do it now. The law is a full system, not just one amendment.

Religion, poll taxes, free speech, payments from foreign countries, etc. Stand up for those, too. Other wise, **** off.
Click to expand...

^
What he said!
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Brenthoven said:
It's part of the overall conversation. There are some saying that he shouldn't be able to do what he's doing because it's wrong (morally, or whatever word you want to use). However, they are confusing that with it actually being legal or illegal.

To use a different issue:

I think abortion is wrong and shouldn't happen in general.
I also know abortion is legal.
So, while I am personally against abortion, I will support anyone's right to get an abortion, because despite my personal feelings, it's a legal act.
Click to expand...

Sorry buddy but the dog just wont hunt. Leaving aside that this isnt legal anyways...I never saw you around here defending the things Obama was doing which were legal. Hell the only thing political you ever talked about was Hillary and her handling of (possibly) classified material. You should be livid over the crap Trump is doing with private servers, non-secured phones, non-governmental emails and of course having a guy who has previously ACTUALLY mishandled classified information.

But back on topic...something isnt illegal until it is made illegal. You have to often take a moral stand to fix it. (see: Slavery, ERA, Civil Rights Amendment) If everyone lived by the standard you do there would be no progress or change. You can say "well it is legal" but you dont have to defend it and you sure as hell dont have to stand for it. That is why people protest...

I think you should rethink how you say these things...I know what you mean to say but the way you worded it is way off and makes you sound a bit closer to Trump than you want to be.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Rover said:
I'll say to anybody who voted for Johnson, Stein, or who didn't vote at all, tell us how you feel? Hillary supporters knew this was going to happen. Trump supporters almost to a man want all this to happen. That leaves the too cool to vote for a major candidate crowd left to tell us what the F they were thinking last November.
Click to expand...

I voted for Hillary, didnt like her but even her at her worst is better than this crap. Trump and his cronies barely qualify as humans let alone Americans.

To that: These Are The People We Are Cozing Up To

Russian Parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence where it doesnt cause substantial bodily harm. Awesome...so we have these clowns and Saudi Arabia who Trump seems to fellate. Guess who is becoming the New Axis of Evil...
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Watched Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, and This Week. Martha Raddatz (ABC) is the only one who did her job this week.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Handyman said:
Sorry buddy but the dog just wont hunt. Leaving aside that this isnt legal anyways...I never saw you around here defending the things Obama was doing which were legal. Hell the only thing political you ever talked about was Hillary and her handling of (possibly) classified material. You should be livid over the crap Trump is doing with private servers, non-secured phones, non-governmental emails and of course having a guy who has previously ACTUALLY mishandled classified information.

But back on topic...something isnt illegal until it is made illegal. You have to often take a moral stand to fix it. (see: Slavery, ERA, Civil Rights Amendment) If everyone lived by the standard you do there would be no progress or change. You can say "well it is legal" but you dont have to defend it and you sure as hell dont have to stand for it. That is why people protest...

I think you should rethink how you say these things...I know what you mean to say but the way you worded it is way off and makes you sound a bit closer to Trump than you want to be.
Click to expand...

SIGH. I am NOT defending the ACTUAL BAN ITSELF. I am defending the POTUS' LEGAL RIGHTS to introduce acts/actions/etc that are LEGAL. If this ban is illegal (and currently it is), then POTUS' actions in trying to enforce it is something I will not defend. IF, somehow, the legal eagles word the ban in such a way that it will be legal, they would have the LEGAL RIGHT to enforce the ban. And it's that LEGAL RIGHT that I am defending.

And until the last few months, I stayed away from the political threads, due to folks like Flaggy and BassAle who spew garbage. Hence, little to no Obama talk from my end, good or bad.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

this list is obama's fault!!! spicy said so on this week.



(mookie is shocked, just shocked, that KSA isn't on the list)
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

dxmnkd316 said:
Oh my god. Is that real?
Click to expand...
Yes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t-decrimiinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

The move, which eliminates criminal liability in such cases, makes a violation punishable by a fine of roughly $500, or a 15-day arrest, provided there is no repeat within 12 months.

The bill now goes to the rubber-stamp upper chamber, where no opposition is expected. It then must be signed by President Vladimir Putin, who has signaled his support.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told journalists that family conflicts do "not necessarily constitute domestic violence."
Click to expand...
A survey this month by state-run pollster VTsIOM found 19% of Russians said “it can be acceptable” to hit one’s wife, husband or child “in certain circumstances,” the Associated Press reported. The nationwide poll by phone of 1,800 people was held Jan. 13-15. The survey had a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.

In many ways, this reflects the thrust of an old Russian proverb: “If he beats you it means he loves you.”

According to Russian government statistics from the Interior Ministry, 40% of all violent crimes are committed within the family. The figures correlate to 36,000 women being beaten by their partners every day and 26,000 children being assaulted by their parents every year.
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Brenthoven said:
SIGH. I am NOT defending the ACTUAL BAN ITSELF. I am defending the POTUS' LEGAL RIGHTS to introduce acts/actions/etc that are LEGAL. If this ban is illegal (and currently it is), then POTUS' actions in trying to enforce it is something I will not defend. IF, somehow, the legal eagles word the ban in such a way that it will be legal, they would have the LEGAL RIGHT to enforce the ban. And it's that LEGAL RIGHT that I am defending.

And until the last few months, I stayed away from the political threads, due to folks like Flaggy and BassAle who spew garbage. Hence, little to no Obama talk from my end, good or bad.
Click to expand...

So you're ok defending an unjust law?
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

alfablue said:
Can you point out, specifically, where in this text where it limits the application to people in the country?



Be specific.

When I read that, it is not specific to anyone or anywhere.
Click to expand...

So you're trying to say that the Constitution applies outside of the US? I can go to Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the official religion of the country, and state that because I'm an American, the Constitution takes precedence?

Even on CopBlock literature where they explain your rights, including the rights you have within 100 miles of the border (which are exactly the same as more than 100 miles), they also explain very specifically that you do not have these protections when you are at the border, because you are not yet in the country, but rather at the border. Once immigration passes you through, then yes, you have all protections under the Constitution. Until said time, you are not subject to the protections of a country you are not in.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

alfablue said:
Lets be realistic- the support is just about jailing and killing people. They don't actually support veterans or cops- just look at the VA or the constant attack on retirement benefits.

the most we can do is have cops, firemen, and vets stand and get applause at events. Beyond that, nothing.

"thank you for your service. Need care? Thank you for your service. Homeless? Thank you for your service.." makes me sick.

these are the same people who want to make D's feel bad that Obama turned his back on cops when they were shot. But they don't feel bad when it comes to taking care of them.

Just like our budget is turning toward a wall and more defense, and away from welfare and healthcare. R's are more interested in killing people than taking care of them.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between being philanthropically charitable and being coerced by the government to do so. If someone's lying on the side of the street, you can either choose to walk by, or stop and help the person out. Liberty, which BTW is the etymology of the word "liberal", is where you have the choice to do either one. I might disagree with the selection you pick, but it is imperative that the freedom to make that selection is protected.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

FlagDUDE08 said:
So you're trying to say that the Constitution applies outside of the US? I can go to Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the official religion of the country, and state that because I'm an American, the Constitution takes precedence?

Even on CopBlock literature where they explain your rights, including the rights you have within 100 miles of the border (which are exactly the same as more than 100 miles), they also explain very specifically that you do not have these protections when you are at the border, because you are not yet in the country, but rather at the border. Once immigration passes you through, then yes, you have all protections under the Constitution. Until said time, you are not subject to the protections of a country you are not in.
Click to expand...

Why don't you cite the SCOTUS cases on point. Your garbage sources are nothing more than advocacy by and for fellow conspiracy buffs.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

dxmnkd316 said:
So you're ok defending an unjust law?
Click to expand...

Sillier yet, he is confining himself to defending the concept of legality itself. Not the legality of any particular law or action--just legality. I can't imagine who one would have to defend that against, other than a dyed-in-the-wool anarchist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top