(January 28, 2017 at 9:53 pm)KWyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 9:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You're an idiot.

I know how to give a complete answer to the item under discussion.  

Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to flood the country with foreign enemies? 

Would you have given political asylum to Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot because their governments were oppressing them?

Would you have welcomed Moses and Mohammed with open arms because they were religious?

Do you realize how idiotic all three of those questions are?

(January 28, 2017 at 9:58 pm)Tres Leches Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 9:53 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: I know how to give a complete answer to the item under discussion.  

Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to flood the country with foreign enemies? 

Would you have given political asylum to Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot because their governments were oppressing them?

Would you have welcomed Moses and Mohammed with open arms because they were religious?

How ironic that we're on a forum with many atheists and non-believers of all stripes who are decrying illegal and immoral actions against ordinary Muslims yet you, who I assume is religious based on your username, seem to be perfectly fine with these same illegal and immoral actions against other religious people. Says it all right there.

I've never said that I'm religious in any manner.  99% of my posts about religions are critical.  They are all BS without exception but I think I understand them more than most people on this forum.  

The original post question didn't ask if Trump's actions were good and beneficial.  It asked if they were legal.  I replied that they were legal and gave supporting reasons why they are legal.  I never said that they were "good".  

If my username was "Chicken Little" it wouldn't mean that I'm a chicken and little.  

BTW, not one person who has been yapping about this has cited any specific law that prohibits Trump's action.  Why don't you work on that for a few minutes?

(January 28, 2017 at 9:58 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 9:56 pm)abaris Wrote: Because, doofus maximus, they aren't foreign enemies but people.

The President classified them as foreign enemies.  Commies and Nazis were people as well but we didn't welcome them with open arms.

One of the men detained at JFK airport today - Hameed Darweesh - was a US Army interpreter in Iraq for 10 years. Fully vetted and approved by the US government to come to the US. You call that a "foreign enemy"? But hey - never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

(January 28, 2017 at 10:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 9:53 pm)KWyrd of Gawd Wrote: I know how to give a complete answer to the item under discussion.  

Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to flood the country with foreign enemies? 

Would you have given political asylum to Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot because their governments were oppressing them?

Would you have welcomed Moses and Mohammed with open arms because they were religious?

Do you realize how idiotic all three of those questions are?

So, based on your other comments it's safe to conclude that you would have gladly welcomed those people with open arms because to do otherwise would be illegal and immoral.  

Thanks for your input.

And this is why I'm still convinced that he has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid. Well, maybe Trump is.

(January 28, 2017 at 10:10 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 9:58 pm)Tres Leches Wrote: How ironic that we're on a forum with many atheists and non-believers of all stripes who are decrying illegal and immoral actions against ordinary Muslims yet you, who I assume is religious based on your username, seem to be perfectly fine with these same illegal and immoral actions against other religious people. Says it all right there.

I've never said that I'm religious in any manner.  99% of my posts about religions are critical.  They are all BS without exception but I think I understand them more than most people on this forum.  

The original post question didn't ask if Trump's actions were good and beneficial.  It asked if they were legal.  I replied that they were legal and gave supporting reasons why they are legal.  I never said that they were "good".  

If my username was "Chicken Little" it wouldn't mean that I'm a chicken and little.  

BTW, not one person who has been yapping about this has cited any specific law that prohibits Trump's action.  Why don't you work on that for a few minutes?

1. Yes people yapping have and you raving have not

2. On the user name not the same thing

3. You can criticize all religion and hate one

4. You don't need to say good

5. No you don't understand them more then a quarter of the people here

6. legal arguments have been shown sorry for your sight problems or your lazyness

(January 28, 2017 at 10:10 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 9:58 pm)Tres Leches Wrote: How ironic that we're on a forum with many atheists and non-believers of all stripes who are decrying illegal and immoral actions against ordinary Muslims yet you, who I assume is religious based on your username, seem to be perfectly fine with these same illegal and immoral actions against other religious people. Says it all right there.

I've never said that I'm religious in any manner.  99% of my posts about religions are critical.  They are all BS without exception but I think I understand them more than most people on this forum.  

The original post question didn't ask if Trump's actions were good and beneficial.  It asked if they were legal.  I replied that they were legal and gave supporting reasons why they are legal.  I never said that they were "good".  

If my username was "Chicken Little" it wouldn't mean that I'm a chicken and little.  

BTW, not one person who has been yapping about this has cited any specific law that prohibits Trump's action.  Why don't you work on that for a few minutes?

Bold is mine.

A law passed by the US Congress in 1965 and upheld by the courts thereafter states: no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

Richard Nixon once said "if the president does it, it's not illegal." And we all know how that story ended.

(January 28, 2017 at 10:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 10:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Do you realize how idiotic all three of those questions are?

So, based on your other comments it's safe to conclude that you would have gladly welcomed those people with open arms because to do otherwise would be illegal and immoral.  

Thanks for your input.

Sigh you can't be this ignorant

(January 28, 2017 at 10:10 pm)Tres Leches Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 9:58 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The President classified them as foreign enemies.  Commies and Nazis were people as well but we didn't welcome them with open arms.

One of the men detained at JFK airport today - Hameed Darweesh - was a US Army interpreter in Iraq for 10 years. Fully vetted and approved by the US government to come to the US. You call that a "foreign enemy"? But hey - never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

Darweesh was released.  http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/hameed-kha...q-alshawi/

(January 28, 2017 at 10:19 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 10:10 pm)Tres Leches Wrote: One of the men detained at JFK airport today - Hameed Darweesh - was a US Army interpreter in Iraq for 10 years. Fully vetted and approved by the US government to come to the US. You call that a "foreign enemy"? But hey - never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

Darweesh was released.  http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/hameed-kha...q-alshawi/

Yes, I'm aware of that. The 2nd man detained, as far I know now, is still being detained. The ACLU filed a lawsuit - Darweesh v. Trump - before Mr. Darweesh was released. I wonder if that had anything to do with his release.