BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge grants stay on Trump's Muslim ban

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

King Philips War.
King Philip's War - Wikipedia
John Leverett - Wikipedia

Before King Phillips War the Massachusetts Bay Colony was also regularly attacked. The fighting was exceptionally brutal on both sides. Both the colonists and the Indians would raid each other's camps pick up infant children by their foot and crack their heads open against a tree in an attempt to anialate the descendants of their enemies. Not bad for puritans. Certainly you've read about this?

Most of my education was paid for by the GI Bill. A reward for getting shot at for the very people you proclaim to care for. I know these people and they are perfectly capeable of defending and fighting for themselves.

King Philip's War was many years after my ancestors landed in 1620, finding safe haven from the religious persecution they had suffered in England - just as I asserted in my post.

I'm not really sure what you're driving at, other than clutching at straws to undermine my point? I assure you, you don't know more about the early history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony than I do.

Religious persecution due to the Counter Reformation and the Council Of Trent by the Jesuits founded by Ignatius of Loyola? The very ones that killed 60 million heretics in Europe and then their disgusting military arm of the Vatican came over to America and founded Georgetown University? The same school you claim to have graduated from??? That one? The irony practically writes itself......

Actually, I would take issue with your understanding of who was persecuting the Pilgrims (Separatists), but that history is all readily available online as well as in actual history books, so I don't need to waste my time educating you. If you're actually interested in getting those fine points correct and not just in personally attacking me, you'll seek out the knowledge yourself.

Yes, life is rich in irony.

My Pilgrim ancestors were such tight ass prigs they didn't allow folks to celebrate Christmas (too much fun!) and flogged folks for all manner of behavior.

400 years later, here I am a once-Episcopalian, now agnostic-leaning-toward-atheism who attended a Jesuit law school with a significant population of Jewish professors/students - which guaranteed many more school holidays than we otherwise would have had, praise Jesus. (Ha! Get it?)

For all their many shortcomings, the Jesuits enjoy a fine tradition of educational excellence with a heavy emphasis on public service - that is what mattered most to me about Georgetown. FYI, while the undergraduate and graduate university still has crucifixes hanging in every classroom, that is not the case at 600 New Jersey Avenue - for obvious reasons there is a bit more arms' length distance in the law school re: all the Catholic stuff. Nevertheless, Father Drinan taught ethics wearing the collar and I was not offended by that just because Grandpa Bill hated the Catholic Church.

The finest thing about Georgetown is the tradition of reconciliation; the blue & gray are representative of the Union and the Confederacy and were adopted by the university in honor of the many patriots who died on both sides of our Civil War.

You just reminded me of a great segue. I went to a Quaker college for my BA and I began to gain an interest in why modern Quakers have turned into agnostic leftists. To be a Quaker you used to have to beleive in the Bible, they were very Lockian in their philosophy, and they could recite much of scripture from memory. Around World War I socialists and communists converted to Quakerism to avoid the draft. Quakers being this welcoming bunch of peace loving Christians let them in to the Religious Society of Friends. Gradually over time leftist reformed the religion until today where you no longer need to be a Christian or beleive in Jesus Christ to be a Quaker. Now Quakerism is a leftist political ideology, not a religion ( See the American Friends Service Cimmitee American Friends Service Committee ). The AFSC is and was so leftist that when they traveled to Cambodia under Pol Pot to help Cambodians they lied about the killing fields because they believed in Pol Pots vision. When they were found out to be liars they just blamed the killings on American involvement in Vietnam where they also rooted for the Vietcong.

This is what happens when the majority becomes the minority in their own society and a great way of explaining why we shouldn't import those who do not share our values and ideas of liberty. Today there are few traditional Quakers left. Why? Because they let outsiders in who did not share their values.

I don't mean to be rude, but I sure hope you're not teaching history anywhere but here on usmessageboard where most of the audience is already full up with false facts from FAUX News and the mouths of Trump/Conway/Spicer.

I would be the first to admit I am not an expert on the history of Quakerism, but the history of the Quaker religion was kinda mandatory studying history at a Quaker college. If you'll look into it you'll find the above to be true. I had access to a private college archives when I learned these crazy facts and there was plenty of material at a Quaker college. They even had their own newspapers from the 60's with front page pictures of Friends flying the Vietcong flag at a protest in Washington DC.

But no matter. I have read a number of works from Marxist historians that were spot on in their historical analysis. The fact that they were Marxists did not impede their professionalism as historians. As a lawyer and a former public defender I expect you to know what it's like to drop ideology to provide the best defense for your client. Even if you don't agree. Certainly you could afford the same professionalism to me and address these arguments instead of name calling? I know you as a lawyer are well versed in the foundations of logic. Indeed, how to argue devoid of fallacy is a mandatory requirement for your profession. If I can read and accept history from Marxist historians you of all people should certainly open your mind to opposing views without calling them xenophobes.

 

[P@triot]

Go ahead, show me where any liberal said that about Obama, ever. Take your time, I'll wait.

Here's the problem though - when I post a bunch of links of progressives here on USMB, you'll proclaim they don't meet your criteria.

When I post the links of Joy Behar saying that the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter - you'll cry that doesn't count.

When I show you progressives cheering egregious violations of the constitution such as Obamacare - you'll deny it was unconstitutional.

Sorry sweetie - I don't need your approval of reality. We all sat through history and watched as progressives insisted that Obama was entitled to unlimited power. We all saw it. Your silly and absurd denial of it doesn't change it.

 

[BoSoxGal]

King Philip's War was many years after my ancestors landed in 1620, finding safe haven from the religious persecution they had suffered in England - just as I asserted in my post.

I'm not really sure what you're driving at, other than clutching at straws to undermine my point? I assure you, you don't know more about the early history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony than I do.

Religious persecution due to the Counter Reformation and the Council Of Trent by the Jesuits founded by Ignatius of Loyola? The very ones that killed 60 million heretics in Europe and then their disgusting military arm of the Vatican came over to America and founded Georgetown University? The same school you claim to have graduated from??? That one? The irony practically writes itself......

Actually, I would take issue with your understanding of who was persecuting the Pilgrims (Separatists), but that history is all readily available online as well as in actual history books, so I don't need to waste my time educating you. If you're actually interested in getting those fine points correct and not just in personally attacking me, you'll seek out the knowledge yourself.

Yes, life is rich in irony.

My Pilgrim ancestors were such tight ass prigs they didn't allow folks to celebrate Christmas (too much fun!) and flogged folks for all manner of behavior.

400 years later, here I am a once-Episcopalian, now agnostic-leaning-toward-atheism who attended a Jesuit law school with a significant population of Jewish professors/students - which guaranteed many more school holidays than we otherwise would have had, praise Jesus. (Ha! Get it?)

For all their many shortcomings, the Jesuits enjoy a fine tradition of educational excellence with a heavy emphasis on public service - that is what mattered most to me about Georgetown. FYI, while the undergraduate and graduate university still has crucifixes hanging in every classroom, that is not the case at 600 New Jersey Avenue - for obvious reasons there is a bit more arms' length distance in the law school re: all the Catholic stuff. Nevertheless, Father Drinan taught ethics wearing the collar and I was not offended by that just because Grandpa Bill hated the Catholic Church.

The finest thing about Georgetown is the tradition of reconciliation; the blue & gray are representative of the Union and the Confederacy and were adopted by the university in honor of the many patriots who died on both sides of our Civil War.

You just reminded me of a great segue. I went to a Quaker college for my BA and I began to gain an interest in why modern Quakers have turned into agnostic leftists. To be a Quaker you used to have to beleive in the Bible, they were very Lockian in their philosophy, and they could recite much of scripture from memory. Around World War I socialists and communists converted to Quakerism to avoid the draft. Quakers being this welcoming bunch of peace loving Christians let them in to the Religious Society of Friends. Gradually over time leftist reformed the religion until today where you no longer need to be a Christian or beleive in Jesus Christ to be a Quaker. Now Quakerism is a leftist political ideology, not a religion ( See the American Friends Service Cimmitee American Friends Service Committee ). The AFSC is and was so leftist that when they traveled to Cambodia under Pol Pot to help Cambodians they lied about the killing fields because they believed in Pol Pots vision. When they were found out to be liars they just blamed the killings on American involvement in Vietnam where they also rooted for the Vietcong.

This is what happens when the majority becomes the minority in their own society and a great way of explaining why we shouldn't import those who do not share our values and ideas of liberty. Today there are few traditional Quakers left. Why? Because they let outsiders in who did not share their values.

I don't mean to be rude, but I sure hope you're not teaching history anywhere but here on usmessageboard where most of the audience is already full up with false facts from FAUX News and the mouths of Trump/Conway/Spicer.

I would be the first to admit I am not an expert on the history of Quakerism, but the history of the Quaker religion was kinda mandatory studying history at a Quaker college. If you'll look into it you'll find the above to be true. I had access to a private colleges archives when I learned these crazy facts. They even had their own newspapers from the 60's flying the Vietcong flag at a protest in Washington DC.

But no matter. I have read a number of works from Marxist historians that were spot on in their historical analysis. The fact that they were Marxists did not impede their professionalism as historians. As a lawyer and a former public defender I expect you to know what it's like to drop ideology to provide the best defense for your client. Even if you don't agree. Certainly you could afford the same professionalism to me and address these arguments instead of name calling? I know you as a lawyer are well versed in the foundations of logic. Indeed, how to argue devoid of fallacy is a mandatory requirement for your profession.

I have close friends who are Quakers and I know quite a bit about the religion, my Grandpa Bill actually persecuted quite a few Quakers back in the day.

There is so much that is inaccurate in what you wrote that I'm not even going to start - and considering you admit not actually knowing a lot about Quakerism after making such sweeping statements about the history of the religion and the present state of the belief community, I'll leave it at that.

 

[P@triot]

I never heard a liberal say Obama could do anything he wanted - and SURPRISE! the ACLU kept plenty busy challenging governmental overreach over the past 8 years while Obama was in office.

So wait...now you're saying that Obama routinely exceeded his authority? Why would he do that? I thought he was a (and I quote) "constitutional scholar"?

If what you're saying is true - then Barack Obama was either ignorant of the U.S. Constitution or he knowingly and intentionally violated it over his lust for power. Would you care to venture which it was?

All Presidents overreach, don't you know your own history?!

You didn't answer the question. Not only that - but in typical progressive fashion you immediately turned to personal insults. Feeling a little threatened, are we sweetie?

I'll ask the question again:

So wait...now you're saying that Obama routinely exceeded his authority? Why would he do that? I thought he was a (and I quote) "constitutional scholar"?

If what you're saying is true - then Barack Obama was either ignorant of the U.S. Constitution or he knowingly and intentionally violated it over his lust for power. Would you care to venture which it was?

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Religious persecution due to the Counter Reformation and the Council Of Trent by the Jesuits founded by Ignatius of Loyola? The very ones that killed 60 million heretics in Europe and then their disgusting military arm of the Vatican came over to America and founded Georgetown University? The same school you claim to have graduated from??? That one? The irony practically writes itself......

Actually, I would take issue with your understanding of who was persecuting the Pilgrims (Separatists), but that history is all readily available online as well as in actual history books, so I don't need to waste my time educating you. If you're actually interested in getting those fine points correct and not just in personally attacking me, you'll seek out the knowledge yourself.

Yes, life is rich in irony.

My Pilgrim ancestors were such tight ass prigs they didn't allow folks to celebrate Christmas (too much fun!) and flogged folks for all manner of behavior.

400 years later, here I am a once-Episcopalian, now agnostic-leaning-toward-atheism who attended a Jesuit law school with a significant population of Jewish professors/students - which guaranteed many more school holidays than we otherwise would have had, praise Jesus. (Ha! Get it?)

For all their many shortcomings, the Jesuits enjoy a fine tradition of educational excellence with a heavy emphasis on public service - that is what mattered most to me about Georgetown. FYI, while the undergraduate and graduate university still has crucifixes hanging in every classroom, that is not the case at 600 New Jersey Avenue - for obvious reasons there is a bit more arms' length distance in the law school re: all the Catholic stuff. Nevertheless, Father Drinan taught ethics wearing the collar and I was not offended by that just because Grandpa Bill hated the Catholic Church.

The finest thing about Georgetown is the tradition of reconciliation; the blue & gray are representative of the Union and the Confederacy and were adopted by the university in honor of the many patriots who died on both sides of our Civil War.

You just reminded me of a great segue. I went to a Quaker college for my BA and I began to gain an interest in why modern Quakers have turned into agnostic leftists. To be a Quaker you used to have to beleive in the Bible, they were very Lockian in their philosophy, and they could recite much of scripture from memory. Around World War I socialists and communists converted to Quakerism to avoid the draft. Quakers being this welcoming bunch of peace loving Christians let them in to the Religious Society of Friends. Gradually over time leftist reformed the religion until today where you no longer need to be a Christian or beleive in Jesus Christ to be a Quaker. Now Quakerism is a leftist political ideology, not a religion ( See the American Friends Service Cimmitee American Friends Service Committee ). The AFSC is and was so leftist that when they traveled to Cambodia under Pol Pot to help Cambodians they lied about the killing fields because they believed in Pol Pots vision. When they were found out to be liars they just blamed the killings on American involvement in Vietnam where they also rooted for the Vietcong.

This is what happens when the majority becomes the minority in their own society and a great way of explaining why we shouldn't import those who do not share our values and ideas of liberty. Today there are few traditional Quakers left. Why? Because they let outsiders in who did not share their values.

I don't mean to be rude, but I sure hope you're not teaching history anywhere but here on usmessageboard where most of the audience is already full up with false facts from FAUX News and the mouths of Trump/Conway/Spicer.

I would be the first to admit I am not an expert on the history of Quakerism, but the history of the Quaker religion was kinda mandatory studying history at a Quaker college. If you'll look into it you'll find the above to be true. I had access to a private colleges archives when I learned these crazy facts. They even had their own newspapers from the 60's flying the Vietcong flag at a protest in Washington DC.

But no matter. I have read a number of works from Marxist historians that were spot on in their historical analysis. The fact that they were Marxists did not impede their professionalism as historians. As a lawyer and a former public defender I expect you to know what it's like to drop ideology to provide the best defense for your client. Even if you don't agree. Certainly you could afford the same professionalism to me and address these arguments instead of name calling? I know you as a lawyer are well versed in the foundations of logic. Indeed, how to argue devoid of fallacy is a mandatory requirement for your profession.

I have close friends who are Quakers and I know quite a bit about the religion, my Grandpa Bill actually persecuted quite a few Quakers back in the day.

There is so much that is inaccurate in what you wrote that I'm not even going to start - and considering you admit not actually knowing a lot about Quakerism after making such sweeping statements about the history of the religion and the present state of the belief community, I'll leave it at that.

This is not traditional Quakerism. American Friends Service Committee That is a statement of fact. Not of opinion.

Indeed I have no doubt you have Quaker friends. They certainly hang out in leftist circles these days. But you should know that you do not need to beleive in God anymore to be a Quaker. That change is a radical divergence from the original religion and derived from welcoming leftists who did not share their values who in turn destroyed traditional Quakerism from the inside out.

That's right, you do not need to beleive in God to be a modern Quaker. ASK YOUR FRIENDS IF THIS IS TRUE AND GET BACK TO ME.

 

[P@triot]

I never heard a liberal say Obama could do anything he wanted - and SURPRISE! the ACLU kept plenty busy challenging governmental overreach over the past 8 years while Obama was in office.

So wait...now you're saying that Obama routinely exceeded his authority? Why would he do that? I thought he was a (and I quote) "constitutional scholar"?

If what you're saying is true - then Barack Obama was either ignorant of the U.S. Constitution or he knowingly and intentionally violated it over his lust for power. Would you care to venture which it was?

Really, didn't you take civics or American government in middle or high school?

 

[P@triot]

I have close friends who are Quakers and I know quite a bit about the religion

You claim to know "quite a bit" about a lot of things. But all I see is an uninformed and immature idealist denying reality and attacking anyone who she feels challenges her false narratives.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Go ahead, show me where any liberal said that about Obama, ever. Take your time, I'll wait.

Here's the problem though - when I post a bunch of links of progressives here on USMB, you'll proclaim they don't meet your criteria.

When I post the links of Joy Behar saying that the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter - you'll cry that doesn't count.

When I show you progressives cheering egregious violations of the constitution such as Obamacare - you'll deny it was unconstitutional.

Sorry sweetie - I don't need your approval of reality. We all sat through history and watched as progressives insisted that Obama was entitled to unlimited power. We all saw it. Your silly and absurd denial of it doesn't change it.

Sorry *sweetie* - when a Constitutional scholar of the caliber of John Roberts considers the Affordable Care Act to be fully within the powers of the government, I'm going to accept his opinion over some moron on USMessageBoard.

And no, I don't get my political analysis from Joy Behar, either.

This kind of anti-intellectualism is exactly what I find so tiring about this place. When did it become such a badge of honor in this country to be willfully ignorant? We are all the poorer for this mentality, political persuasion aside.

 

[Dale Smith]

I never heard a liberal say Obama could do anything he wanted - and SURPRISE! the ACLU kept plenty busy challenging governmental overreach over the past 8 years while Obama was in office.

So wait...now you're saying that Obama routinely exceeded his authority? Why would he do that? I thought he was a (and I quote) "constitutional scholar"?

If what you're saying is true - then Barack Obama was either ignorant of the U.S. Constitution or he knowingly and intentionally violated it over his lust for power. Would you care to venture which it was?

All Presidents overreach, don't you know your own history?!

So doesn't Congress, all the time - R in control or D in control.

That's why we have the judiciary. And when they screw up, we have the other branches of government. Have you heard of checks & balances?

And over all of them is the watchful eye of the Fourth Estate.


Really, didn't you take civics or American government in middle or high school?

So, please tell me why every court is incorporated...even the Supreme Court is a corporation...you can look it up on the Dun and Bradstreet website.......did you know that the IRS is actually a Puerto Rican Trust #62 and is the collection arm of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) that took USA.INC into receivership after it's 1950 bankruptcy to provide the 19 enumerated services per it's corporate charter constitution put in place by the Act of 1871??? Every town, city, county and state is a corporate entity and owned by the IMF. You have nothing that the state can't take a way from you if you don't follow their acts, statutes, codes and ordinances because we don't have laws. Under the Universal Commercial Code/admiralty law, corporations pass public policies. Now, you may be asking yourself as to why it matters that "gubermint" is incorporated and that is a fair question....the answer is that when something is incorporated, you take it from the jurisdiction of the land and you place it under the UCC/admiralty law which is the law of the sea....do ya get it? I know you are asking yourself how this is possible...but I have the dates and legislation that made it happen. I want to see if you have any intellectual curiosity as to how this came to be.....

 

[P@triot]

Sorry *sweetie* - when a Constitutional scholar of the caliber of John Roberts considers the Affordable Care Act to be fully within the powers of the government, I'm going to accept his opinion over some moron on USMessageBoard.

Wait...I thought Obama was also a "constitutional scholar" but you just accused him several posts back of routinely committing "government overreach" during his 8 years.

So clearly being a "constitutional scholar" doesn't mean much.

By the way sweetie - Antonin Scalia was the ultimate "constitutional scholar" and his dissenting opinion obliterated Obamacare on its unconstitutionality.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

King Philip's War was many years after my ancestors landed in 1620, finding safe haven from the religious persecution they had suffered in England - just as I asserted in my post.

I'm not really sure what you're driving at, other than clutching at straws to undermine my point? I assure you, you don't know more about the early history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony than I do.

History is a vast subject and no one can truly know it all. That why historians major in parts of history. Mine is Military History with a focus on Indian warfare. Indeed the Massachusetts Bay Colony fought the natives very early in their history but particularly after they recoverd from the illnesses the colonists brought with them during the first colony which prevented them from wageing as early and effective attacks as they could have, although, they did try from time to time. Nevertheless, they fought early, they fought often, and they are your kin.

I never asserted they didn't; I'm very well aware of the actions Governor Bradford - I call him Grandpa Bill - engaged in toward the native population once they ceased to be useful and became an obstacle to expansion of the colony.

I merely asserted that my ancestors found safe haven here as refugees fleeing religious persecution - of that there is no doubt. They promptly set about persecuting others for religious reasons once happily settled here, there is no denying that truth, either.

My larger point remains that we began as a country of refugees/immigrants, and it's nothing but ignorant xenophobia that compels a bunch of descendants of immigrants to support denying safe haven to refugees fleeing war-torn countries just because of the color of their skin or the religion that they practice.

Of note is the fact that none of the terrorist acts perpetrated in this country were perpetrated by people from the countries your Drumpfuhrer is attempting to ban. It's nonsensical in that regard; that he issues such a ban on Holocaust Remembrance Day when we have cause to consider the Jews we turned away who were later murdered by the Nazis is just indescribably disgusting.

Once again, an uneasy peace at best and attempted genocide at worst. Drop the ideology and look at the facts. They may have been in search of a safe haven but it was not granted to them; they had to carve it out for themselves via blood. This isn't ideology, this is factual history. Realism trumps ideology every time.

When I received my bachelors I was thinking of pursuing something along the realm of constitutional history and wrote a number of papers on constitutional disagreements and contraversies that never seemed to stay within the 25 page limit. In all of my studies I noticed a favoritism toward western immigration, and a very narrow favoritism at that. At first I came to the same concludsion. I thought it to be a racist policy. I quickly found out that they truly favored peoples that assimilated easily into their form of government in keeping with their ideas of liberty in which the law you once practiced was founded.

Throughout history peoples who made their own law founded in their own values have alway been weary of outsiders coming in and imposing opposite values not congruent with the foundations of liberty. This is why the right of return to Israel is denied. If the right of return was granted then Israel would cease to be a democracy.

Immigration policy should favor the citizens of a country in keeping with their safety, values, and laws. Peoples who do not beleive in individual liberty, have a high propensity toward violence, treat their women like garbage, and rape little children, are not in keeping with our ideas of liberty. I've been to these countries, I know these people, and I know how they act. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Cultures have values, values are an indicator of politics, and politics dictate laws and policy. The Somali refugees in Minnesota are a perfect example of what happens when you import a group of people not congruent with the American experiment. That's not ideology, that's fact. Realism trumps ideology everytime.

You're clearly a xenophobe who is strong on ugly opinions without facts to support them.

Do you have any idea how many Muslims are in the United States? How many of them are 1st or 2nd generation Americans?

Honestly the kind of ugly opinions you hold and spew are the exact reason I don't visit here often. It makes me sick to realize how many people like you exist in this otherwise beautiful country.

There are quite a few first and second generation muslims joining the Islamic state at the moment. However let's nail this thing down shall we?

Suppose there is a culture that values gang rape, eating their own feces, and murdering a random member of society every Tuesday. Now let's suppose they get invaded and oppressed. Question: Would you let them in as refugees?

Now the question is rediculous because no such people exist. I get that. But would you let them in to your country?

And I found a question bigskygal cant answer.

 

[Dale Smith]

Go ahead, show me where any liberal said that about Obama, ever. Take your time, I'll wait.

Here's the problem though - when I post a bunch of links of progressives here on USMB, you'll proclaim they don't meet your criteria.

When I post the links of Joy Behar saying that the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter - you'll cry that doesn't count.

When I show you progressives cheering egregious violations of the constitution such as Obamacare - you'll deny it was unconstitutional.

Sorry sweetie - I don't need your approval of reality. We all sat through history and watched as progressives insisted that Obama was entitled to unlimited power. We all saw it. Your silly and absurd denial of it doesn't change it.

Sorry *sweetie* - when a Constitutional scholar of the caliber of John Roberts considers the Affordable Care Act to be fully within the powers of the government, I'm going to accept his opinion over some moron on USMessageBoard.

And no, I don't get my political analysis from Joy Behar, either.

This kind of anti-intellectualism is exactly what I find so tiring about this place. When did it become such a badge of honor in this country to be willfully ignorant? We are all the poorer for this mentality, political persuasion aside.

Yeaaaaah....... (doing my best Bill Lumbergh impression from the movie Office Space) I'm gonna have to ask you to explaaaaaaiiiin to me under even the corporate charter of the D.C constitution of this corporation as to how I am required to purchase anything that I don't wanna....that' be greeaaaat....m'kay????

 

[P@triot]

And I found a question bigskygal cant answer.

Pfff! We've all done that. My second post in this thread stumped her.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

History is a vast subject and no one can truly know it all. That why historians major in parts of history. Mine is Military History with a focus on Indian warfare. Indeed the Massachusetts Bay Colony fought the natives very early in their history but particularly after they recoverd from the illnesses the colonists brought with them during the first colony which prevented them from wageing as early and effective attacks as they could have, although, they did try from time to time. Nevertheless, they fought early, they fought often, and they are your kin.

I never asserted they didn't; I'm very well aware of the actions Governor Bradford - I call him Grandpa Bill - engaged in toward the native population once they ceased to be useful and became an obstacle to expansion of the colony.

I merely asserted that my ancestors found safe haven here as refugees fleeing religious persecution - of that there is no doubt. They promptly set about persecuting others for religious reasons once happily settled here, there is no denying that truth, either.

My larger point remains that we began as a country of refugees/immigrants, and it's nothing but ignorant xenophobia that compels a bunch of descendants of immigrants to support denying safe haven to refugees fleeing war-torn countries just because of the color of their skin or the religion that they practice.

Of note is the fact that none of the terrorist acts perpetrated in this country were perpetrated by people from the countries your Drumpfuhrer is attempting to ban. It's nonsensical in that regard; that he issues such a ban on Holocaust Remembrance Day when we have cause to consider the Jews we turned away who were later murdered by the Nazis is just indescribably disgusting.

Once again, an uneasy peace at best and attempted genocide at worst. Drop the ideology and look at the facts. They may have been in search of a safe haven but it was not granted to them; they had to carve it out for themselves via blood. This isn't ideology, this is factual history. Realism trumps ideology every time.

When I received my bachelors I was thinking of pursuing something along the realm of constitutional history and wrote a number of papers on constitutional disagreements and contraversies that never seemed to stay within the 25 page limit. In all of my studies I noticed a favoritism toward western immigration, and a very narrow favoritism at that. At first I came to the same concludsion. I thought it to be a racist policy. I quickly found out that they truly favored peoples that assimilated easily into their form of government in keeping with their ideas of liberty in which the law you once practiced was founded.

Throughout history peoples who made their own law founded in their own values have alway been weary of outsiders coming in and imposing opposite values not congruent with the foundations of liberty. This is why the right of return to Israel is denied. If the right of return was granted then Israel would cease to be a democracy.

Immigration policy should favor the citizens of a country in keeping with their safety, values, and laws. Peoples who do not beleive in individual liberty, have a high propensity toward violence, treat their women like garbage, and rape little children, are not in keeping with our ideas of liberty. I've been to these countries, I know these people, and I know how they act. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Cultures have values, values are an indicator of politics, and politics dictate laws and policy. The Somali refugees in Minnesota are a perfect example of what happens when you import a group of people not congruent with the American experiment. That's not ideology, that's fact. Realism trumps ideology everytime.

You're clearly a xenophobe who is strong on ugly opinions without facts to support them.

Do you have any idea how many Muslims are in the United States? How many of them are 1st or 2nd generation Americans?

Honestly the kind of ugly opinions you hold and spew are the exact reason I don't visit here often. It makes me sick to realize how many people like you exist in this otherwise beautiful country.

There are quite a few first and second generation muslims joining the Islamic state at the moment. However let's nail this thing down shall we?

Suppose there is a culture that values gang rape, eating their own feces, and murdering a random member of society every Tuesday. Now let's suppose they get invaded and oppressed. Question: Would you let them in as refugees?

Now the question is rediculous because no such people exist. I get that. But would you let them in to your country?

And I found a question bigskygal cant answer.

History is a vast subject and no one can truly know it all. That why historians major in parts of history. Mine is Military History with a focus on Indian warfare. Indeed the Massachusetts Bay Colony fought the natives very early in their history but particularly after they recoverd from the illnesses the colonists brought with them during the first colony which prevented them from wageing as early and effective attacks as they could have, although, they did try from time to time. Nevertheless, they fought early, they fought often, and they are your kin.

I never asserted they didn't; I'm very well aware of the actions Governor Bradford - I call him Grandpa Bill - engaged in toward the native population once they ceased to be useful and became an obstacle to expansion of the colony.

I merely asserted that my ancestors found safe haven here as refugees fleeing religious persecution - of that there is no doubt. They promptly set about persecuting others for religious reasons once happily settled here, there is no denying that truth, either.

My larger point remains that we began as a country of refugees/immigrants, and it's nothing but ignorant xenophobia that compels a bunch of descendants of immigrants to support denying safe haven to refugees fleeing war-torn countries just because of the color of their skin or the religion that they practice.

Of note is the fact that none of the terrorist acts perpetrated in this country were perpetrated by people from the countries your Drumpfuhrer is attempting to ban. It's nonsensical in that regard; that he issues such a ban on Holocaust Remembrance Day when we have cause to consider the Jews we turned away who were later murdered by the Nazis is just indescribably disgusting.

Once again, an uneasy peace at best and attempted genocide at worst. Drop the ideology and look at the facts. They may have been in search of a safe haven but it was not granted to them; they had to carve it out for themselves via blood. This isn't ideology, this is factual history. Realism trumps ideology every time.

When I received my bachelors I was thinking of pursuing something along the realm of constitutional history and wrote a number of papers on constitutional disagreements and contraversies that never seemed to stay within the 25 page limit. In all of my studies I noticed a favoritism toward western immigration, and a very narrow favoritism at that. At first I came to the same concludsion. I thought it to be a racist policy. I quickly found out that they truly favored peoples that assimilated easily into their form of government in keeping with their ideas of liberty in which the law you once practiced was founded.

Throughout history peoples who made their own law founded in their own values have alway been weary of outsiders coming in and imposing opposite values not congruent with the foundations of liberty. This is why the right of return to Israel is denied. If the right of return was granted then Israel would cease to be a democracy.

Immigration policy should favor the citizens of a country in keeping with their safety, values, and laws. Peoples who do not beleive in individual liberty, have a high propensity toward violence, treat their women like garbage, and rape little children, are not in keeping with our ideas of liberty. I've been to these countries, I know these people, and I know how they act. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Cultures have values, values are an indicator of politics, and politics dictate laws and policy. The Somali refugees in Minnesota are a perfect example of what happens when you import a group of people not congruent with the American experiment. That's not ideology, that's fact. Realism trumps ideology everytime.

You're clearly a xenophobe who is strong on ugly opinions without facts to support them.

Do you have any idea how many Muslims are in the United States? How many of them are 1st or 2nd generation Americans?

Honestly the kind of ugly opinions you hold and spew are the exact reason I don't visit here often. It makes me sick to realize how many people like you exist in this otherwise beautiful country.

There are quite a few first and second generation muslims joining the Islamic state at the moment. However let's nail this thing down shall we?

Suppose there is a culture that values gang rape, eating their own feces, and murdering a random member of society every Tuesday. Now let's suppose they get invaded and oppressed. Question: Would you let them in as refugees?

Now the question is rediculous because no such people exist. I get that. But would you let them in to your country?

And I found a question bigskygal cant answer.

Correction, refuses to answer.

 

[Dale Smith]

I never heard a liberal say Obama could do anything he wanted - and SURPRISE! the ACLU kept plenty busy challenging governmental overreach over the past 8 years while Obama was in office.

So wait...now you're saying that Obama routinely exceeded his authority? Why would he do that? I thought he was a (and I quote) "constitutional scholar"?

If what you're saying is true - then Barack Obama was either ignorant of the U.S. Constitution or he knowingly and intentionally violated it over his lust for power. Would you care to venture which it was?

All Presidents overreach, don't you know your own history?!

So doesn't Congress, all the time - R in control or D in control.

That's why we have the judiciary. And when they screw up, we have the other branches of government. Have you heard of checks & balances?

And over all of them is the watchful eye of the Fourth Estate.


Really, didn't you take civics or American government in middle or high school?

So, please tell me why every court is incorporated...even the Supreme Court is a corporation...you can look it up on the Dun and Bradstreet website.......did you know that the IRS is actually a Puerto Rican Trust #62 and is the collection arm of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) that took USA.INC into receivership after it's 1950 bankruptcy to provide the 19 enumerated services per it's corporate charter constitution put in place by the Act of 1871??? Every town, city, county and state is a corporate entity and owned by the IMF. You have nothing that the state can't take a way from you if you don't follow their acts, statutes, codes and ordinances because we don't have laws. Under the Universal Commercial Code/admiralty law, corporations pass public policies. Now, you may be asking yourself as to why it matters that "gubermint" is incorporated and that is a fair question....the answer is that when something is incorporated, you take it from the jurisdiction of the land and you place it under the UCC/admiralty law which is the law of the sea....do ya get it? I know you are asking yourself how this is possible...but I have the dates and legislation that made it happen. I want to see if you have any intellectual curiosity as to how this came to be.....

Dude...you're going to make her head explode. And that will quickly be followed by her temper (progressives all have the same M.O.).

She is a fraud.......whether she is really a barrister or not? She doesn't have the chops. If she is one? Then she knows that I will beat her down....if she isn't? She hasn't a clue about what I am talking about thus she avoids me.....100 percent fraud.

 

[BoSoxGal]

I have close friends who are Quakers and I know quite a bit about the religion

You claim to know "quite a bit" about a lot of things. But all I see is an uninformed and immature idealist denying reality and attacking anyone who she feels challenges her false narratives.

I grew up in a blue collar household with lots of books on the shelves; my parents valued education the way Americans used to do once upon a time. They invested in a set of encyclopedia Brittanica which I read voraciously as a child. I hold two Bachelors, a Masters, and a JD. I'm 46 years old and have served my country through public service for two decades.

But yeah, I'm immature and uninformed.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Go ahead, show me where any liberal said that about Obama, ever. Take your time, I'll wait.

Here's the problem though - when I post a bunch of links of progressives here on USMB, you'll proclaim they don't meet your criteria.

When I post the links of Joy Behar saying that the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter - you'll cry that doesn't count.

When I show you progressives cheering egregious violations of the constitution such as Obamacare - you'll deny it was unconstitutional.

Sorry sweetie - I don't need your approval of reality. We all sat through history and watched as progressives insisted that Obama was entitled to unlimited power. We all saw it. Your silly and absurd denial of it doesn't change it.

Sorry *sweetie* - when a Constitutional scholar of the caliber of John Roberts considers the Affordable Care Act to be fully within the powers of the government, I'm going to accept his opinion over some moron on USMessageBoard.

And no, I don't get my political analysis from Joy Behar, either.

This kind of anti-intellectualism is exactly what I find so tiring about this place. When did it become such a badge of honor in this country to be willfully ignorant? We are all the poorer for this mentality, political persuasion aside.

Kinda hard to complain about anti-intellectualism when you respond to legitimate arguments by ignoring the merits and name calling. I asked you an easy question that you refused to answer because it would demonstrate the flaws in your ideology. You never responded. The times you did respond you launched insults whilst simply contradicting me. Now I hope I don't need to explain the differrence between contradiction and argument to a lawyer but at the same time I hope I do. Ignorance of the difference reflects better than a lawyer that doesn't know the difference.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

I have close friends who are Quakers and I know quite a bit about the religion

You claim to know "quite a bit" about a lot of things. But all I see is an uninformed and immature idealist denying reality and attacking anyone who she feels challenges her false narratives.

I grew up in a blue collar household with lots of books on the shelves; my parents valued education the way Americans used to do once upon a time. They invested in a set of encyclopedia Brittanica which I read voraciously as a child. I hold two Bachelors, a Masters, and a JD. I'm 46 years old and have served my country through public service for two decades.

But yeah, I'm immature and uninformed.

I'll bet you grew up surrounded by liberal beta males that hung on your every word as you yapped on and on about yourself. Is the source of your animosity toward Republicans derived from all those handsome and fit alpha male Republicans refusing to put up with a woman who couldn't stop yapping about herself?

 

[Eloy]

I have close friends who are Quakers and I know quite a bit about the religion

You claim to know "quite a bit" about a lot of things. But all I see is an uninformed and immature idealist denying reality and attacking anyone who she feels challenges her false narratives.

I grew up in a blue collar household with lots of books on the shelves; my parents valued education the way Americans used to do once upon a time. They invested in a set of encyclopedia Brittanica which I read voraciously as a child. I hold two Bachelors, a Masters, and a JD. I'm 46 years old and have served my country through public service for two decades.

But yeah, I'm immature and uninformed.

I'll bet you grew up surrounded by liberal beta males that hung on your every word as you yapped on and on about yourself. Is the source of your animosity toward Republicans derived from all those handsome and fit alpha male Republicans refusing to put up with a woman who couldn't stop yapping about herself?

This thread has hit rock bottom. I must start another about the need of the judiciary to check the president.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

I have close friends who are Quakers and I know quite a bit about the religion

You claim to know "quite a bit" about a lot of things. But all I see is an uninformed and immature idealist denying reality and attacking anyone who she feels challenges her false narratives.

I grew up in a blue collar household with lots of books on the shelves; my parents valued education the way Americans used to do once upon a time. They invested in a set of encyclopedia Brittanica which I read voraciously as a child. I hold two Bachelors, a Masters, and a JD. I'm 46 years old and have served my country through public service for two decades.

But yeah, I'm immature and uninformed.

I'll bet you grew up surrounded by liberal beta males that hung on your every word as you yapped on and on about yourself. Is the source of your animosity toward Republicans derived from all those handsome and fit alpha male Republicans refusing to put up with a woman who couldn't stop yapping about herself?

This thread has hit rock bottom. I must start another about the need of the judiciary to check the president.

I don't think you're going to find much argument there.