DC Tom Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Probably should have... You know there's some sort of "withholding sex from men, because Trump" protest coming up, right? That should give you an early taste of being married to her. Let us know how that works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 You know there's some sort of "withholding sex from men, because Trump" protest coming up, right? That should give you an early taste of being married to her. Let us know how that works out. Deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 There's nothing stopping "so-called president" Trump from retracting the unconstitutional EO and creating a new one that is vetted by the Justice and Homeland Security departments to meet constitutional requirements, except for his ego that prevents him from admitting he is wrong. So stupid and (small) ham-handed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Rest comfortably tonight Pasta Joe knowing that Isis is sending people to our country that want to cut your throat and burn your family alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Rest comfortably tonight Pasta Joe knowing that Isis is sending people to our country that want to cut your throat and burn your family alive. Or what PastaJoe calls "workplace violence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 There's nothing stopping "so-called president" Trump from retracting the unconstitutional EO and creating a new one that is vetted by the Justice and Homeland Security departments to meet constitutional requirements, except for his ego that prevents him from admitting he is wrong. So stupid and (small) ham-handed. As was already pointed out, this should be a positive day for anyone who actually values the constitution and principles under which this nation is supposed to operate. If anything it should assuage some of the more nightmarish scenarios being pushed by the fearmongers on the left and in the media. Thus...the checks and balances start to come in to effect. The Oompa-Loompa-in-Chief, it turns out, can't do whatever the !@#$ he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 http://ijr.com/wildfire/2017/02/794398-this-magnificent-video-of-trump-listening-to-obama-clinton-on-immigration-is-just-what-the-worlds-been-waiting-for/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook While much of the nation is “shocked, shocked I tell you,” by President Trump's travel ban order, as well as his determination to enforce the country's borders, a video has come along that puts the faux hysteria into perfect context: Trump listening to former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on illegal immigration. One thing noticeably absent: Mobs of protesters torching buildings and assaulting citizens after Clinton and Obama spoke out against illegal immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 As was already pointed out, this should be a positive day for anyone who actually values the constitution and principles under which this nation is supposed to operate. If anything it should assuage some of the more nightmarish scenarios being pushed by the fearmongers on the left and in the media. I'm thinking that someone who refers to Trump as the "so-called" president doesn't value the Constitution to any meaningful degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) 9th circuit's ruling is in... Court shoots down the ban. I just finished reading that decision. That's was transparent judicial elasticism at its finest. What a crock of crap. I'm not expressing an opinion on the administration's policy or how it was implemented. It does look like Trump's legal team vomited on itself, but that fact shouldn't permit the Court from making up crap just to take advantage of its own self-interest (and I'm not even saying that it is a politically-motivated decision). The court was deciding a motion to reinstate the ban. They went out of their way to say that the States' marginal standing claim has merit "at this stage" of the proceeding. The logic they used to support standing to argue for the citizens of seven foreign countries is stupid. They say that Washington and Minnesota can argue on behalf of their State University faculty and students and their families affected by the ban. Okay, fine, but then the court could have/should have restored the ban to only State University students and faculty -- not EVERYONE. Later, they say that the 5th amendment protects "individuals" even who don't reside here and aren't green card holders, but who hold visas. How then does that apply to Syrian refugees who have no such status. Huh? How does that follow? They went out of their way to say that their decision is only really in effect until the appeal of the district court order is decided and "at this stage" it appears that the government doesn't have a winnable case on the merits. The court's reasoning and logic was flimsy and disengenuous at best. It seems pretty clear that they don't care because their self-interest had to be to get the spotlight off of them for the time being. Checks and balances are one thing (and one thing I was hopeful for no matter who won the election in November) but one branch can't make s**t up just to exercise restraint on another. That's abuse and it's lame and it is especially lame when courts do it. Edited February 10, 2017 by snafu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Rest comfortably tonight Pasta Joe knowing that Isis is sending people to our country that want to cut your throat and burn your family alive. Might wanna direct your ire from non existant demons to something more tangible to the safety of the republic....like say maybe pre-election negotiations with the russians..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Might wanna direct your ire from non existant demons to something more tangible to the safety of the republic....like say maybe pre-election negotiations with the russians..... Reset button I'll have more flexibility after the election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 http://ijr.com/wildfire/2017/02/794398-this-magnificent-video-of-trump-listening-to-obama-clinton-on-immigration-is-just-what-the-worlds-been-waiting-for/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook While much of the nation is “shocked, shocked I tell you,” by President Trump's travel ban order, as well as his determination to enforce the country's borders, a video has come along that puts the faux hysteria into perfect context: Trump listening to former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on illegal immigration. One thing noticeably absent: Mobs of protesters torching buildings and assaulting citizens after Clinton and Obama spoke out against illegal immigration. I think I posted this yesterday. I can't figure it out. Rational people can be shown this, and dismiss it. Close friends and family, people I respect, but they refuse to see the contradictions in their reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Might wanna direct your ire from non existant demons to something more tangible to the safety of the republic....like say maybe pre-election negotiations with the russians..... The '80s called, they want their foreign policy back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 I just finished reading that decision. That's was transparent judicial elasticism at its finest. What a crock of crap. I'm not expressing an opinion on the administration's policy or how it was implemented. It does look like Trump's legal team vomited on itself, but that fact shouldn't permit the Court from making up crap just to take advantage of its own self-interest (and I'm not even saying that it is a politically-motivated decision). The court was deciding a motion to reinstate the ban. They went out of their way to say that the States' marginal standing claim has merit "at this stage" of the proceeding. The logic they used to support standing to argue for the citizens of seven foreign countries is stupid. They say that Washington and Minnesota can argue on behalf of their State University faculty and students and their families affected by the ban. Okay, fine, but then the court could have/should have restored the ban to only State University students and faculty -- not EVERYONE. Later, they say that the 5th amendment protects "individuals" even who don't reside here and aren't green card holders, but who hold visas. How then does that apply to Syrian refugees who have no such status. Huh? How does that follow? They went out of their way to say that their decision is only really in effect until the appeal of the district court order is decided and "at this stage" it appears that the government doesn't have a winnable case on the merits. The court's reasoning and logic was flimsy and disengenuous at best. It seems pretty clear that they don't care because their self-interest had to be to get the spotlight off of them for the time being. Checks and balances are one thing (and one thing I was hopeful for no matter who won the election in November) but one branch can't make s**t up just to exercise restraint on another. That's abuse and it's lame and it is especially lame when courts do it. EUGENE KONTOROVICH: The 9th Circuit’s dangerous and unprecedented use of campaign statements to block presidential policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Reset button I'll have more flexibility after the election The '80s called, they want their foreign policy back.Remember how upset baskin was when those took place? Neither does anyone else. You're a lame ass hypocrite, baskin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 The '80s called, they want their foreign policy back. In the next version of the DC Tom bot, can you include any of those references when someone mentions Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Might wanna direct your ire from non existant demons to something more tangible to the safety of the republic....like say maybe pre-election negotiations with the russians..... I can figure out what makes me giggle harder Russian hacker talk or Russ Brandon haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 I can figure out what makes me giggle harder Russian hacker talk or Russ Brandon haters. Only fags giggle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) Only fags giggleI wouldn't know, you spend more time with them than I. I didn't go through that power bottom stage like you after Francine dumped ya. Edited February 10, 2017 by Ryan L Billz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 ALVEDA KING: Why didn’t Sen. Warren read the letter when my aunt Coretta said immigration would be bad for the African-American job market? Obama’s Attorney General honors Sally Yates in tweet celebrating appeals court ruling. PHOENIX MAYOR, DEMOCRAT, SLAMS TRUMP DEPORTATION OF MEXICAN-BORN MOTHER OF TWO AS ‘TRAVESTY:’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 Urbana man charged with living, voting in U.S. illegally http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-02-10/urbana-man-charged-living-voting-us-illegally.html URBANA — A Mexican national who has lived in Urbana since 2005, allegedly using a stolen identity, was arraigned Thursday on seven federal counts, including four related to voting by an illegal immigrant. Miguel Valencia-Sandoval, 33, who allegedly had been using the identity of a Texas man named Ramiro G. Vasquez, pleaded not guilty to the charges before Magistrate Eric Long at U.S. District Court in Urbana Same as the woman deported from Phoenix, using a stolen false identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) There's nothing stopping "so-called president" Trump from retracting the unconstitutional EO and creating a new one that is vetted by the Justice and Homeland Security departments to meet constitutional requirements, except for his ego that prevents him from admitting he is wrong. So stupid and (small) ham-handed. Hey look, President Trump is going to take Pasta Joe's advice............... BREAKING. Is Trump Planning To Issue A New Travel Order? Moot & reboot: White House working on replacement travel-pause EO? NBC: Trump Administration Rewriting Immigration Executive Order Edited February 10, 2017 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 CHANGE: ‘We’re going to see more’: Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump’s funding threats. Unidentified 9th Circuit Judge seeks vote on further review of panel Order AT THE NINTH CIRCUIT, a sua sponte motion for en banc rehearing of the immigration decision. Note that even if the court doesn’t go for rehearing, this opens it up for unhappy judges on the 9th who weren’t on the original 3-judge panel to file blistering dissents. Which will be there for the Supreme Court to read if it reviews the panel decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Remember how upset baskin was when those took place? Neither does anyone else. You're a lame ass hypocrite, baskin. But at least he isn't a Democrat shill nor a partisan. We have his word on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 California Asks For $100B Despite Refusal To Enforce Immigration Laws. California officials may not be happy with President Trump’s immigration orders, but they are eager to get a piece of the $1 trillion infrastructure plan that he has promised. State officials proposed a list of infrastructure projects on Wednesday that would require $100 billion in federal funds. Some of the projects include improving roads, bridges, levees, ports and public transportation according to the Los Angeles Times. Although California Democrats have been critical of President Trump’s immigration policies, state officials have praised his massive infrastructure proposal. Trump promised to repair roads and bridges across the country in his inaugural address and California Gov. Jerry Brown responded last month in his State of the State address: “And I say, ‘Amen to that, man. Amen to that, brother.’” Now that’s a high-speed gravy train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 18, 2017 Author Share Posted February 18, 2017 LOL......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 California Asks For $100B Despite Refusal To Enforce Immigration Laws. California officials may not be happy with President Trump’s immigration orders, but they are eager to get a piece of the $1 trillion infrastructure plan that he has promised. State officials proposed a list of infrastructure projects on Wednesday that would require $100 billion in federal funds. Some of the projects include improving roads, bridges, levees, ports and public transportation according to the Los Angeles Times. Although California Democrats have been critical of President Trump’s immigration policies, state officials have praised his massive infrastructure proposal. Trump promised to repair roads and bridges across the country in his inaugural address and California Gov. Jerry Brown responded last month in his State of the State address: “And I say, ‘Amen to that, man. Amen to that, brother.’” Now that’s a high-speed gravy train. And they'll get it, too, when the courts decide that withholding it is a violation of the equal protection clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 And they'll get it, too, when the courts decide that withholding it is a violation of the equal protection clause. Yeah but when we secede we'll be on our own baby. We don't need no stinking federal mon.......oh !@#$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Yeah but when we secede we'll be on our own baby. We don't need no stinking federal mon.......oh !@#$! Aren't the same people calling for California's secession the ones that claimed even a mention of Texas seceding was sedition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Aren't the same people calling for California's secession the ones that claimed even a mention of Texas seceding was sedition? Yes, but we're mostly gun-totin' rednecks out here, so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Yeah but when we secede we'll be on our own baby. We don't need no stinking federal mon.......oh !@#$! Leave if you must, but the nukes, Navy ships, Air Force planes, the soldiers, sailors, and airmen all belong to us. On the other hand, all those evacuated armed forces bases will make swell neighborhoods for the hundreds of thousands of new Mexicans and Guatemalan Demi-citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Leave if you must, but the nukes, Navy ships, Air Force planes, the soldiers, sailors, and airmen all belong to us. On the other hand, all those evacuated armed forces bases will make swell neighborhoods for the hundreds of thousands of new Mexicans and Guatemalan Demi-citizens. Why do we need a military? People love California! They really love us!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Why do we need a military? People love California! They really love us!! True. But you'll probably need to get James Taylor to move there and become Secretary of State. He's got the magic touch in international affairs, or so I've heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 THIS POLITICIAN MAKES THE MOST SENSE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION I have been waiting a long time for a politician to come along who has exactly the right view of illegal immigration. Finally, I have I guess this was before the Democrats figured out that there was lots of money, and quite a few votes, to be had by being scofflaws. Note that Obama is quite a bit to Trump’s right on immigration. Trump is actually a squish, if you take his pronouncements seriously. He has never talked much about going after employers, which is pretty much the whole ball game. A commenter at InstaPundit has a great idea: President Trump ought to use these exact same words in his next speech and then we can see how the left and the media react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) THIS POLITICIAN MAKES THE MOST SENSE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION I have been waiting a long time for a politician to come along who has exactly the right view of illegal immigration. Finally, I have I guess this was before the Democrats figured out that there was lots of money, and quite a few votes, to be had by being scofflaws. Note that Obama is quite a bit to Trump’s right on immigration. Trump is actually a squish, if you take his pronouncements seriously. He has never talked much about going after employers, which is pretty much the whole ball game. A commenter at InstaPundit has a great idea: President Trump ought to use these exact same words in his next speech and then we can see how the left and the media react. He pretty much did that with Clinton 1996 speech. You can throw this in the Trump haters faces, and they just move on. I pointed it out to my mom, and her response was "well, that just proves how divisive he is. It's the combativeness of the way he presents it. He is tearing the nation apart!" It doesn't matter how many points you make, they are either brainwashed, or so deeply entrenched in their position (because they have publically put their reputation behind attacking Trump) that they can't come back. They are beyond reason. At this point they would have to admit to being completely wrong about some the beliefs that they have built their ego's around. They won't do it, instead it's just fervent denial. I mean, they can't even admit he actually won the election. Maybe they need a hashtag that provides a soft opening for them to express consent... "#IhateTrumpbut...his immigration policy is exactly the same as Bill Clinton's" "#IhateTrumpbut....it seems like he is saving some American jobs" "#IhateTrumpbut....Common Core is kinda kooky" Edited February 21, 2017 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 "#IhateTrumpbut...he won the election" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) "#IhateTrumpbut...he won the election" I looked on Twitter, and there is one guy, one guy in the world, that has used that hashtag, and only once. I don't have a Twitter account (don't want one), so I can't get it rolling, but there needs to be an outlet for the haters to give soft praise. #IhateTrumpbut....I have to admit, Melania is hot. Edited February 21, 2017 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 22, 2017 Author Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) No real surprise............... Poll: Americans oppose sanctuary cities, support Trump’s immigration agenda A poll released today found that Americans are overwhelmingly against sanctuary cities. From the Hill: A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with… A majority — 52 percent — say they support Trump’s two executive orders allowing for the construction of a southern border wall, increasing the number of immigration officers by 10,000 and finding a way to revoke federal funds for sanctuary cities. The crackdown on sanctuary cities is the most popular feature of those actions, followed closely by the directive to increase the border patrol, which is backed by 75 percent of voters. A Reuters story published last month estimated the nation’s top 10 sanctuary cities could lose $2.3 billion in federal funds if they refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democratic mayors in Chicago and New York have vowed not to cooperate with any efforts to end sanctuary city policies. However, other parts of the country have voted to end the policies. Miami-Dade county dropped its sanctuary status last week. Overall, this is a very positive poll for Trump. The one exception is the construction of a southern border wall. When this one piece of his agenda is separated from the rest, poll respondents opposed the wall 53-47. Everything else Trump has proposed, including his temporary travel ban on immigration from 7 nations, has majority support. Support for the travel ban went as high as 60% when the question described the 7 countries that are the targets of the ban as “Muslim majority countries.” Edited February 22, 2017 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 22, 2017 Author Share Posted February 22, 2017 Remember when Paul Ryan was going to push Granny off a cliff? Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) brings back Dem “Granny” strategy. Dem Senator: “Granny” will be “dragged out of her apartment” under Trump immigration policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Beating women "is the last resort" for a Muslim man... https://twitter.com/theboltreport/status/834327717147324416 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts