Wickerman777's forum posts

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Wickerman777 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

You're going to whine about a list? We're talking NOW about an illegal ban. Didn't your parents teach you that you are responsible for yourself and not to blame others? Seriously that's like kindergarten talk.

Lol, go ahead and exist in your own fantasy world. I just showed a few replies up the page why it isn't illegal. He could have gone way, way further than that and gotten far more specific than that and it still would have been completely legal. You can go ahead and believe it wasn't a nice thing to do, that's open to opinion, but it sure as shit is legal.

LOL you are no expert in law. Also presidents don't make law to start with.

Oh, but you are, lol.

section 212(f) of the INA

"(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

An elementary school kid could read that and know what it means ... but apparently you can't, ha ha.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Wickerman777 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@JimB said:

The list of countries included in the ban was identified by the Obama Administration.

As a list of countries in turmoil. So what? He didn't do what Trump did. You trumpettes are so desperate.

Umm, no. It was a list of what he considered the worst of the worst when it comes to terrorist countries. In fact, he called it the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. Nothing about turmoil in that title, definitely something about terrorism though, ha ha. Libs ... we don't have an argument so let's just make shit up. :)

You're going to whine about a list? We're talking NOW about an illegal ban. Didn't your parents teach you that you are responsible for yourself and not to blame others? Seriously that's like kindergarten talk.

Lol, go ahead and exist in your own fantasy world. I just showed a few replies up the page why it isn't illegal. He could have gone way, way further than that and gotten far more specific than that and it still would have been completely legal. You can go ahead and believe it wasn't a nice thing to do, that's open to opinion, but it sure as shit is legal.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@mrbojangles25 said:

The ban is illegal

Again, for clarity, the ban is illegal.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 clearly states the president has no right nor ability to do anything like this. Worse, in this case of this translater guy, his wife is already here and [iirc] a citizen so according to the Act:

  • One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.
  • It created a seven-category preference system, which gave priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and to professionals and other individuals with specialized skills.
  • Immediate relatives and "special immigrants" were not subject to numerical restrictions. Some of the "special immigrants" include ministers, former employees of the U.S. government, foreign medical graduates, among others.
  • For the first time, immigration from the Western Hemisphere was limited.
  • It added a labor certification requirement, which dictated that the Secretary of Labor needed to certify labor shortages.
  • Refugees were given the seventh and last category preference with the possibility of adjusting their status. However, refugees could enter the United States through other means as well like those seeking temporary asylum.

Is this enough to impeach him yet!?!?!

He can prevent absolutely anyone from coming here and for as long as he wants and anytime he wants. This is why:

section 212(f) of the INA

"(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

You see how broad that is? It says he can bar anyone he wants at anytime he wants and for any reason he wants!!!!! Yes, he's even allowed to be discriminatory about it if he so chooses. I know you libs have got it in your head that it's somehow an international human right to come to the United States but it isn't and never has been. THAT'S A FANTASY. Coming here is a privilege, not a right. And it's a privilege that can be withdrawn anytime a president wishes to do so.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@JimB said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Icarian said:

911 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE and Lebanon. None of those are on the black list. Orlando shooter was born in the US and was American, his parents were Afghan. Afghanistan isn't on the list. S.B. attackers were from Pakistan. Again not on the list. Boston bombers were from Kyrgystan. Again, not on the list. Trump's ban wouldn't have stopped any of those.

Come on man....they like alternative facts. Not facts.

The list of countries included in the ban was identified by the Obama Administration.

As a list of countries in turmoil. So what? He didn't do what Trump did. You trumpettes are so desperate.

Umm, no. It was a list of what he considered the worst of the worst when it comes to terrorist countries. In fact, he called it the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. Nothing about turmoil in that title, definitely something about terrorism though, ha ha. Libs ... we don't have an argument so let's just make shit up. :)

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@killered3 said:

@omnichris:

Oh puh-lease! Trump has had this coming the minute he decided to run for president with this retarded plan in mind. No one walks in here saying, "There's gonna be some changes around here because there's a new sheriff in town!" without facing opposition. If Trump can't handle it then he can quit. No one's going to stop him! LOL

If you say you're a president for the people but you fight against the people's wishes then you're not for the people. Trump came with that mentality and now he's facing the full gravity of his actions. It's not easy to be president! You fight resistance no matter where you stand on the political spectrum.

Well, your side is making yourselves look great. Trump is working at a breakneck speed to such an extent that everyone is talking about it, even the opposition. Now look at the other side, dragging their feet and doing nothing like nobody has ever done that before. Pretty sure I heard on a news program that it's taking longer to get his cabinet in than it's taken anybody's cabinet ever. And because of the democrats. Now compare that, historical speed vs historical plodding. That really the comparison ya want running through peoples' heads the next time they go to vote? Good luck in 2018.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts
@perfect_blue said:

His resume is pretty damn impressive and it could have been a lot worse (like if Trump nominated Pryor).

He will get filibustered so hard his head will spin though lol.

I personally was hoping for Pryor just cuz it gave me pleasure thinking how much that would piss off your side, lol. But I'll take this guy.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts
@toast_burner said:
@Wickerman777 said:
@toast_burner said:
@FireEmblem_Man said:

he pretty much is a lot like Scalia

So he values his own personal opinions over the constitution... great.

This is what politics has devolved into. People create their own realities. Scalia is known for being a constitutionalist, an originalist. But you know that and don't care.

I could say I'm a duck, that doesn't make me a duck.

I know the repeated claims that he's a constitutionalist, but his words and actions do not support it. Take what he said about Lawrence V. Texas for example

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

He clearly states that his reasoning is not based on the constitution but simply that he doesn't like the supposed immoral culture of it and thinks that the majority of the population being opposed to it as well is also a reason. Can you cite me the part of the constitution that says mob rule can get rid of peoples rights?

What's in the constitution specifically about homosexuality and culture that relates to that? Ya look to the constitution whenever you can but there's lots of stuff it doesn't cover but other forms of legal precedent does. And anyway, I have no idea what context those couple of paragraphs have been yanked from.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@toast_burner said:
@FireEmblem_Man said:

he pretty much is a lot like Scalia

So he values his own personal opinions over the constitution... great.

This is what politics has devolved into. People create their own realities. Scalia is known for being a constitutionalist, an originalist. But you know that and don't care.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@mark1974 said:

@JimB: Are you psyched JimB? Is this guy harsh rightwing enough for your personal tastes or were you hoping for more?

Well, obviously you're not. Yeppers, who needs a constitutionalist when a leftwing activist that pays no attention to precedent but simply rules based on their own personal beliefs would be a more thoughtful and practical pick (Sarcasm, of course). Hey, y'all gotta freebie already when Bush senior mistakenly picked David Souter and he turned out to be a hard leftwinger. So much so that he made sure he retired during a democrat's term so that he could be replaced by another leftist. Oops! We win some and lose some. Right now I'm watching Ginsberg and Breyer, 83 and 78. Hopefully Trump will get to be the one to replace them.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

I'm surprised Witcher 3 hasn't been updated for Pro. That company has a history of tweaking like crazy so for them to not want to do it for this ... it's odd.